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.
Could be like Buddha Nature? Define what you mean by 'God'? Even the Bible is conflicted over what God is. 1 John 4:8 says 'God is love'.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited September 2014
Ok, let me be more specific : while I grew up within an exclusive and somewhat insular closeted environment of Roman Catholicism, an oft-repeated message was that we should pray to God and Jesus and ask them to relieve us of the burden of having to ponder solutions, and rather than struggle with finding our own way through, surrender our hearts and minds to them, and permit their sacred intervention to deal with the issues. That's what I , while in a position to be strongly influenced by nuns, an exclusively R.C environment and daily generous helpings of Biblical instruction, was encouraged to believe and to practice.
Given that my concern with an external saviour is now in lower than zero, and has been for a couple of decades, I sought to be brief and recount my experiential perspective. I should perhaps not have generalised but did so for the sake of brevity.
As you can see, I am particularly good at brevity.... .
@Tosh said:
Could be like Buddha Nature? Define what you mean by 'God'? Even the Bible is conflicted over what God is. 1 John 4:8 says 'God is love'.
If it's like Buddha Nature then why not call it that? Why the need to continually translate experiences into the language of another tradition? It seems unnecessary and confusing to mix and match these terms. We're on a Buddhist forum so it would be good to explore what Buddha Nature is, rather than trying to guess what some Christians think God is.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
I just have issues with such statements as "God is love", so long as this God character sends people to eternal torment if they don't believe in the divinity of his son.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
I just have issues with such statements as "God is love", so long as this God character sends people to eternal torment if they don't believe in the divinity of his son.
Or doesn't help relieve human suffering...
@SpinyNorman said:
Why the need to continually translate experiences into the language of another tradition? It seems unnecessary and confusing to mix and match these terms. We're on a Buddhist forum so it would be good to explore what Buddha Nature is, rather than trying to guess what some Christians think God is.
@SpinyNorman said:
If it's like Buddha Nature then why not call it that? Why the need to continually translate experiences into the language of another tradition? It seems unnecessary and confusing to mix and match these terms. We're on a Buddhist forum so it would be good to explore what Buddha Nature is, rather than trying to guess what some Christians think God is.
Well, SpinyNorman, from the internet, many highly realised Buddhist teachers have actually taken the time to even write books on beeby Jesus 'n' God 'n' stuff. Thich Naht Hahn has quite a popular one called Living Buddha Living Christ which looks at the similarities of both teachers.
Adyshanti (spelling?) - a guy with a background in Zen and who seems quite popular in Buddhist/spiritual circles has a book out called Resurrecting Jesus (which I'm about to embark upon).
I'm also fairly sure there's a Sutta where the point of it is that it doesn't matter where wisdom comes from, it only matters if it's 'Truth' (and by 'Truth' I don't mean having a basis in reality; another highly respected Buddhist teacher teaches that 'Truth' is measured by how much peace and joy they bring).
And I don't feel a need to continually translate anything, I'm just helping you to understand; it may help you realise there's more to other religions than you think, so you need not dismiss them as pointless.
I think seeing the similarities - rather than the differences - is a spiritual practise too.
I'm not a Christian, nor am I a Buddhist. I'm not attached to either.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
I just have issues with such statements as "God is love", so long as this God character sends people to eternal torment if they don't believe in the divinity of his son.
Ah, that's just Catholic doctrine to get bums on pews. Hell isn't a Bible teaching. You'll find the word Hell in the Bible, but the context is totally different from an eternal fiery place. Hell is translated from Gehenna which was a rubbish tip outside of Jerusalem. Fires burnt there, animals with 'gnashing teeth' fought over scraps of food and the bodies of the executed were dumped there.
Mummies would frighten their children with "If you don't behave, you'll end up in Gehenna!"
But it's not a Bible teaching and many churches recognise this.
There are Hell realms in Buddhism though - not eternal ones - you can get reborn into other realms. I think of them as states of mind; I'm an alkie; I kind of understand the Hell realm.
I've read Living Buddha Living Christ, and thought it was very woolly. I have some Quaker friends and understand very well that Christians think about God in different ways. What I don't understand is this need to make Buddhism and Christianity the same thing - they're not. Some similarities, yes, but also major differences. By all means sit on the fence if you don't want to commit, but don't criticise people who have made the decision.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@Tosh What's in the Bible concerns me somewhat, but what people believe is more of an issue. When people try to pass off a judgmental God, and eternal torment for non-believers and people of other religions, as all-good... well I have a problem for them to solve, and they can't solve it except to turn off something. I could never worship a deity that would do that; there's no rationale I could accept as being justice, but many people do accept it and don't really think about it (thinking is a good first step).
@SpinyNorman said:
I've read Living Buddha Living Christ, and thought it was very woolly. I have some Quaker friends and understand very well that Christians think about God in different ways. What I don't understand is this need to make Buddhism and Christianity the same thing - they're not. Some similarities, yes, but also major differences. By all means sit on the fence if you don't want to commit, but don't criticise people who have made the decision.
Jesus Christ, Spiny, even Buddhism isn't the same thing. In another post folk are talking about Pure Land Buddhism; now compare that with Zen - they're not the same thing.
You're getting tied up with concepts. In Christianity, the deeper understanding of 'worshipping false idols' is really worshipping false concepts. And as you should know, all concepts are false. They call them 'truth concealers' in Tibetan Buddhism.
What I'm saying is that your concept of what Buddhism and Christianity is, is actually concealing the truth from you.
And I'm not criticising you either. Where have I done that? Your attachment to your concept of Buddhism seems to be causing you to see things that aren't there. You've attached it to your ego so that when the concept is threatened, you feel threatened. I understand how that works, but I'm certainly not criticising you. It's a discussion forum the last time I looked.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Tosh What's in the Bible concerns me somewhat, but what people believe is more of an issue. When people try to pass off a judgmental God, and eternal torment for non-believers and people of other religions, as all-good... well I have a problem for them to solve, and they can't solve it except to turn off something. I could never worship a deity that would do that; there's no rationale I could accept as being justice, but many people do accept it and don't really think about it (thinking is a good first step).
In Buddhism, many folk worship the Buddha in pretty much the same way people worship a deity.
The counter-argument to this is 'no, we don't worship the Buddha, we worship what the Buddha represents'. And you'll find the same school of thought in Christianity.
Karma - can be viewed almost like a 'judgemental God' too. I understand that's a wrong view, but you cannot deny many Buddhists will understand it to be that way.
Ah, that's just Catholic doctrine to get bums on pews. Hell isn't a Bible teaching....
There are Hell realms in Buddhism though.
So there isn't really a Hell in Christianity, but there are really Hell realms in Buddhism.
Can you see what you're doing here? You're rejecting a charicature of Christianity but imposing one on Buddhism. It sounds like a Christian apologist sniping at Buddhism.
I think you should just get on and practice Christianity.
@SpinyNorman said:
So there isn't really a Hell in Christianity, but there are really Hell realms in Buddhism.
Can you see what you're doing here?
Thank you. I was being ironic. I can post gross generalisations as facts too y'know!
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@Tosh What I mean is that I find the Hell concept the most evil idea ever devised, and it would be the most immoral thing ever to sentence a sentient being to eternal torment. Many people actually believe that the billion living Hindus are going there, and my question is how can they possibly deserve that? How could that God possibly be "good"? They can't satisfactorily answer these questions, except to say "Well he's God, the Creator, he can do what he wants." or "Well he's God, so whatever he does is moral.", both of which are horrible answers.
I understand that all spiritual traditions are fantastic and blah-blah-blah.
Trying to compare or criticise either won't take us anywhere.
My only doubt here is: this is a Buddhist forum.
Normally you log into a Buddhist forum either because you're a Buddhist or show some interest in Buddhism, or want to learn about Buddhism, or exchange opinions with other like-minded members.
My feeling lately is we're constantly being derailed off-Buddhism, Christianity-wise, by people who seem to have a strong Christian mindset.
I don't mean you, @Tosh, I'm talking in general.
My question is: why always the comparison? Why always the Bible quoting?
If some people feel so strongly about Christianity, why come here to criticise Buddhism in our noses and proselityse about another religion?
Edit: Why do we Buddhists have to constantly justify our beliefs on a Buddhist site???????
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Tosh What I mean is that I find the Hell concept the most evil idea ever devised, and it would be the most immoral thing ever to sentence a sentient being to eternal torment. Many people actually believe that the billion living Hindus are going there, and my question is how can they possibly deserve that? How could that God possibly be "good"? They can't satisfactorily answer these questions, except to say "Well he's God, the Creator, he can do what he wants." or "Well he's God, so whatever he does is moral.", both of which are horrible answers.
But Buddhist Hell Realms are okay? They're more compassionate? Not as hot maybe?
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
@Tosh I don't believe that stuff, but at least Buddhist hells aren't any more eternal than Buddhist heavens. There's much less of a problem even if they existed; they'd be way-points between one birth and another. Again I don't actually believe them, in the literal sense. Metaphorically sure.
@SpinyNorman said:
Not at all. I just wish you'd stop sitting on the fence! Join the Quakers or something!
LOL, no. I'm not fence sitting. I just have an interest in spiritual things. I'm an alcoholic and if I've got a religion it's the 12 Steps (which are very Buddhist if you look at them that way).
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Tosh I don't believe that stuff, but at least Buddhist hells aren't any more eternal than Buddhist heavens. There's much less of a problem even if they existed; they'd be way-points between one birth and another. Again I don't actually believe them, in the literal sense. Metaphorically sure.
I don't believe in them either and I'm sure many Christians don't believe in the picture you painted of Christian beliefs either.
I'm just playing the devils advocate because it annoys Spiny.
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
@Tosh Yeah all people aren't Hindus either! I'm talking about the people who do believe what I've stated, not the ones who don't. No point arguing over the people who don't believe, and missing the point of the argument.
@SpinyNorman said:
Seriously, check out the Quakers, they might be of interest.
Thanks; they do interest me, but not enough. If anything I'm more drawn to Buddhism. I did do a two year foundation course in Gelug Buddhism, which was pretty scholastic, but towards the end of the course I made the decision to just stick with A.A.. Why? Because of some very 'Buddhist' reasons. I'm more useful there and it really helps my practise of compassion.
I also learn the non-value of mere beliefs too. I've seen alcoholics who believe in God die typical alcoholic deaths (like my father), yet I see atheists recover from their alcoholism by practising some simple spiritual principles (dealing with their pasts, forgiving people who've harmed them, making amends to people they've harmed, trying to be more kind and compassionate for others).
What I'm saying is that people can believe what they want, but it doesn't mean much in real terms. What we do is what counts. And if a belief in God/Karma/Buddha/Englightenment/Hell (Christian)/Hell Realms (Buddhist) helps modify our behaviour in line with reality, then that's a good thing. I really don't believe that 'Truth' needs to be based in reality; the real test of it is in it's transformative effect.
My A.A. sponsor is a Christian, though he strikes me as being more 'Buddhist' than many Buddhists I've met. The man is tough, but he's pure compassion and very wise. You wouldn't believe how many alcoholics he's helped pull out of a Hell Realm; me included.
@SpinyNorman said:
So there isn't really a Hell in Christianity, but there are really Hell realms in Buddhism.
Can you see what you're doing here? You're rejecting a charicature of Christianity but imposing one on Buddhism. It sounds like a Christian apologist sniping at Buddhism.
I think you should just get on and practice Christianity.
Okay, buy a ticket to Thailand, take a tour of BUDDHIST temples in Bangkok AND upcountry, and count the number of huge paintings and even theme parks at temples depicting Buddhist hells (and heavens, at least in the case of paintings). And by the way, those paintings and theme parks are used as teaching tools. Now go to your average Methodist church, or even modern Catholic Church, and see how many times hell is mentioned in sermons.
Tosh can't impose a caricature on Buddhism that's already there.
And what is this obsession you have with "sniping" at Buddhism lately. Some of us didn't just throw our last religion in the trash can and then buy the new religion lock, stock, and barrel. We look for similarities...as well as differences. We look for what works for various people. We don't believe in it's all or nothing at all.
@SpinyNorman said:
So can't you combine Buddhist practice with AA?
A.A. practise is Buddhist. We've basically got the 8fold path if you look at the three categories:
Ethical lifestyle
Cultivation of Wisdom
The practise of Compassion
But I don't consider myself a Buddhist. It wouldn't be helpful to new alcoholics to label myself this way. I label myself as an alcoholic (even though it's been quite a few years since I last drank) because that's a useful label to hold.
If newcomers to A.A. knew I was a Buddhist, they might think I was a bit weird (due to their possible concept of Buddhists) and it may pose a barrier to helping them.
It's just a pointless label for me. Doesn't Buddhism teach us to try and lose the labels? So I don't feel the need to add another.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
It's odd how many people think they're recovered, but still go to AA. I think AA is meant as a preventative measure... you never graduate from it, you're there for life replacing one habit with another. Maybe I'm wrong.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
It's odd how many people think they're recovered, but still go to AA. I think AA is meant as a preventative measure... you never graduate from it, you're there for life replacing one habit with another. Maybe I'm wrong.
You're not only wrong, it's obvious that you don't have a clue. Look, I'm an alcoholic but drinking wasn't my real problem. I may have thought drinking was my problem, at my 'height' (or depth) I was drinking 2 litres of whiskey a day.
But the fact was that drinking was really my SOLUTION to my real problem, which is that I couldn't handle the way I felt sober.
I always took my first drink when I was stone cold sober. Think about it.
Therefore drinking wasn't really the problem; being sober was the REAL problem. In a real sense I didn't have a drinking problem, what I really had was a sobriety problem.
So what have I recovered from? Well it's not my alcoholism; I can never drink safely again; but that's no big deal - I don't need to drink anymore, so long as I remain (in A.A. speak) spiritually fit.
I've recovered from a hopeless state of mind and body.
@vinlyn said:
Some of us didn't just throw our last religion in the trash can and then buy the new religion lock, stock, and barrel. We look for similarities...as well as differences. We look for what works for various people. We don't believe in it's all or nothing at all.
We neither "threw" nor "bought."
We chose.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@Tosh Stop going to AA meetings and see how long you stay sober. Taking that first drink means you're not recovered, just as becoming angry in Buddhism means you're not enlightened. That's all I'm saying. I love how hard you came down on me; I think you're being defensive because you don't understand, and not the other way around... but I'm done talking to you about this subject (no point getting riled up!).
Again, you just sound like a Christian apologist sniping at Buddhism, it's becoming very tiresome. Clearly you can't make up your mind about which path you really want to follow.
For a while you thought you were a secular Buddhist, then a secular religionist or something?
If you want to be a "Christo-Buddhist", that's fine, but please don't expect the rest of us to be one, and please don't expect the rest of us to adopt your idiosyncratic view of the world.
As I said to Tosh, the labels aren't important anyway, what's important is how we practise.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Tosh Stop going to AA meetings and see how long you stay sober.
The fellowship in a congenial sangha is essential to one's faring well in the spiritual path.
It must be the same with AA meetings, Aldris.
Besides, you have the opportunity to do some helping yourself.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Tosh Stop going to AA meetings and see how long you stay sober. Taking that first drink means you're not recovered, just as becoming angry in Buddhism means you're not enlightened. That's all I'm saying. I love how hard you came down on me; I think you're being defensive because you don't understand, and not the other way around... but I'm done talking to you about this subject (no point getting riled up!).
@Aldris, did you even read what I wrote? How am I not recovered? I've just ran a marathon, I'm running a 42 mile ultra marathon in May which takes me through a bunch of mountains - currently training for it now. I feel strong and extremely fit, I have some peace in my life (to run distance you need to be peaceful because you're a long time in your head), I have a happy home life (Mrs Tosh works and runs with me) I haven't drank in years - in what way am I unwell? Just because I can't drink booze safely? Get a life.
For your information 'recovered' comes from this line in the Big Book:
We, of Alcoholics Anonymous, are more than one hundred men and women who have recovered from a seemingly hopeless state of mind and body.
Notice what they've recovered from (hopeless state of mind and body). And I don't go to A.A. meetings to stay sober. If that worked everyone who went to meetings would stay sober, but they don't. I go to A.A. meetings to give back what I've been given. I put out tables and chairs, help set the room up, make coffee; to do a little service.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Can we all just breathe and try at least to be nice to each other? We all have our journeys to walk, our experiences to recount and to lean on, and our perceptions to evaluate and determine as skilful or otherwise.
I don't wish to appear namby-pamby, but I've had it up to ~here~ (*brushes hand horizontally at least a foot above head*) with worthless, pointless, aimless bickering and egotistic insistence. Here and everywhere else, currently.
I'm fed up with trying to evaluate what is justified and what is Ego - both in my actions and those of others!
Simmer down, gentlemen, and be civilised towards one another.
I'd be grateful.
@SpinyNorman said:
Again, you just sound like a Christian apologist sniping at Buddhism, it's becoming very tiresome. Clearly you can't make up your mind about which path you really want to follow.
For a while you thought you were a secular Buddhist, then a secular religionist or something?
If you want to be a "Christo-Buddhist", that's fine, but please don't expect the rest of us to be one, and please don't expect the rest of us to adopt your idiosyncratic view of the world.
As I said to Tosh, the labels aren't important anyway, what's important is how we practise.
You are analyzing my position incorrectly.
If you find my posts tiresome, don't read them, or at least quit whining about it. I find your posts tiresome, as well, but I don't keep whining about how I am reacting to them.
It isn't so much that I can't make up my mind about which path I want to follow, as it is that I think there is more than one path to follow and that it is not necessary to put all one's eggs in one basket. I reject the concept that all of life is either - or. Yes, there are aspects of Buddhism that don't mesh with Christianity (just as there are aspects of Theravadan Buddhism that don't mesh with Zen Buddhism), but that doesn't mean that an open-minded person can't find the wisdom in much of what Buddha said, as well as the wisdom in much of what Christ said. I'm not alone in that. Perhaps you should read "Living Buddha, Living Christ" by Thich Nhat Hanh. But, also, I have had meetings with a number of Theravadan monks in Thailand who have told me there is no need to give up Christianity to also be a Buddhist.
You say that, "labels aren't important", but in this one post you've used 4 labels.
Where have I asked you, or anyone, to "adopt [my] idiosyncratic view of the world"? Stating a position in a forum is not the same as asking someone else to join the view. To those here who are fully Zen, fine and dandy. Fully Theravadan, fine and dandy. Fully anything, fine and dandy. Somewhere in between, fine and dandy. I learn from all of them. Over my time in this forum I have fundamentally changed my perspective on (for example) karma. I am totally open-minded about rebirth...if some proof comes along, in either direction, I'll accept it.
Some of us are on a journey, while a few seem to have arrived. You seem to be the latter. Good for you! You've sorted everything out. Good for you! Please allow the rest of us to struggle along our own path.
@SpinyNorman said:
Anyway, the thread is supposed to be about approaches to Buddhism.
The thread begins: "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."
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
I'd be sad if I considered this my thread, at how it devolved a bit, and how I may have been part of that. Luckily this is "our" thread, and posterity's thread, so I agree with @federica that we should just get back on topic if we can.
I did wish people would watch the video and then discuss those parallels that Alan Wallace brought up, even if the Buddhist tradition he was speaking about wasn't necessarily your own. I was surprised by quite a few of them, and they brought me closer in spirit with those practitioners (and even Christians who value a contemplative practice).
Comments
The 'God within' is also a common theme in Christianity.
Still God though.
Could be like Buddha Nature? Define what you mean by 'God'? Even the Bible is conflicted over what God is. 1 John 4:8 says 'God is love'.
Ok, let me be more specific : while I grew up within an exclusive and somewhat insular closeted environment of Roman Catholicism, an oft-repeated message was that we should pray to God and Jesus and ask them to relieve us of the burden of having to ponder solutions, and rather than struggle with finding our own way through, surrender our hearts and minds to them, and permit their sacred intervention to deal with the issues. That's what I , while in a position to be strongly influenced by nuns, an exclusively R.C environment and daily generous helpings of Biblical instruction, was encouraged to believe and to practice.
.
Given that my concern with an external saviour is now in lower than zero, and has been for a couple of decades, I sought to be brief and recount my experiential perspective. I should perhaps not have generalised but did so for the sake of brevity.
As you can see, I am particularly good at brevity....
If it's like Buddha Nature then why not call it that? Why the need to continually translate experiences into the language of another tradition? It seems unnecessary and confusing to mix and match these terms. We're on a Buddhist forum so it would be good to explore what Buddha Nature is, rather than trying to guess what some Christians think God is.
I just have issues with such statements as "God is love", so long as this God character sends people to eternal torment if they don't believe in the divinity of his son.
Or doesn't help relieve human suffering...
Now we're talking! .. :clap: ..
Well, SpinyNorman, from the internet, many highly realised Buddhist teachers have actually taken the time to even write books on beeby Jesus 'n' God 'n' stuff. Thich Naht Hahn has quite a popular one called Living Buddha Living Christ which looks at the similarities of both teachers.
Adyshanti (spelling?) - a guy with a background in Zen and who seems quite popular in Buddhist/spiritual circles has a book out called Resurrecting Jesus (which I'm about to embark upon).
I'm also fairly sure there's a Sutta where the point of it is that it doesn't matter where wisdom comes from, it only matters if it's 'Truth' (and by 'Truth' I don't mean having a basis in reality; another highly respected Buddhist teacher teaches that 'Truth' is measured by how much peace and joy they bring).
And I don't feel a need to continually translate anything, I'm just helping you to understand; it may help you realise there's more to other religions than you think, so you need not dismiss them as pointless.
I think seeing the similarities - rather than the differences - is a spiritual practise too.
I'm not a Christian, nor am I a Buddhist. I'm not attached to either.
Ah, that's just Catholic doctrine to get bums on pews. Hell isn't a Bible teaching. You'll find the word Hell in the Bible, but the context is totally different from an eternal fiery place. Hell is translated from Gehenna which was a rubbish tip outside of Jerusalem. Fires burnt there, animals with 'gnashing teeth' fought over scraps of food and the bodies of the executed were dumped there.
Mummies would frighten their children with "If you don't behave, you'll end up in Gehenna!"
But it's not a Bible teaching and many churches recognise this.
There are Hell realms in Buddhism though - not eternal ones - you can get reborn into other realms. I think of them as states of mind; I'm an alkie; I kind of understand the Hell realm.
I've read Living Buddha Living Christ, and thought it was very woolly. I have some Quaker friends and understand very well that Christians think about God in different ways. What I don't understand is this need to make Buddhism and Christianity the same thing - they're not. Some similarities, yes, but also major differences. By all means sit on the fence if you don't want to commit, but don't criticise people who have made the decision.
@Tosh What's in the Bible concerns me somewhat, but what people believe is more of an issue. When people try to pass off a judgmental God, and eternal torment for non-believers and people of other religions, as all-good... well I have a problem for them to solve, and they can't solve it except to turn off something. I could never worship a deity that would do that; there's no rationale I could accept as being justice, but many people do accept it and don't really think about it (thinking is a good first step).
Jesus Christ, Spiny, even Buddhism isn't the same thing. In another post folk are talking about Pure Land Buddhism; now compare that with Zen - they're not the same thing.
You're getting tied up with concepts. In Christianity, the deeper understanding of 'worshipping false idols' is really worshipping false concepts. And as you should know, all concepts are false. They call them 'truth concealers' in Tibetan Buddhism.
What I'm saying is that your concept of what Buddhism and Christianity is, is actually concealing the truth from you.
And I'm not criticising you either. Where have I done that? Your attachment to your concept of Buddhism seems to be causing you to see things that aren't there. You've attached it to your ego so that when the concept is threatened, you feel threatened. I understand how that works, but I'm certainly not criticising you. It's a discussion forum the last time I looked.
In Buddhism, many folk worship the Buddha in pretty much the same way people worship a deity.
The counter-argument to this is 'no, we don't worship the Buddha, we worship what the Buddha represents'. And you'll find the same school of thought in Christianity.
Karma - can be viewed almost like a 'judgemental God' too. I understand that's a wrong view, but you cannot deny many Buddhists will understand it to be that way.
I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post.
Ah, that's just Catholic doctrine to get bums on pews. Hell isn't a Bible teaching....
There are Hell realms in Buddhism though.
So there isn't really a Hell in Christianity, but there are really Hell realms in Buddhism.
Can you see what you're doing here? You're rejecting a charicature of Christianity but imposing one on Buddhism. It sounds like a Christian apologist sniping at Buddhism.
I think you should just get on and practice Christianity.
Can you see what you're doing here?
Thank you. I was being ironic. I can post gross generalisations as facts too y'know!
@Tosh What I mean is that I find the Hell concept the most evil idea ever devised, and it would be the most immoral thing ever to sentence a sentient being to eternal torment. Many people actually believe that the billion living Hindus are going there, and my question is how can they possibly deserve that? How could that God possibly be "good"? They can't satisfactorily answer these questions, except to say "Well he's God, the Creator, he can do what he wants." or "Well he's God, so whatever he does is moral.", both of which are horrible answers.
You've attached it to your ego so that when the concept is threatened, you feel threatened.
Not at all. I just wish you'd stop sitting on the fence! Join the Quakers or something!
I understand that all spiritual traditions are fantastic and blah-blah-blah.
Trying to compare or criticise either won't take us anywhere.
My only doubt here is: this is a Buddhist forum.
Normally you log into a Buddhist forum either because you're a Buddhist or show some interest in Buddhism, or want to learn about Buddhism, or exchange opinions with other like-minded members.
My feeling lately is we're constantly being derailed off-Buddhism, Christianity-wise, by people who seem to have a strong Christian mindset.
I don't mean you, @Tosh, I'm talking in general.
My question is: why always the comparison? Why always the Bible quoting?
If some people feel so strongly about Christianity, why come here to criticise Buddhism in our noses and proselityse about another religion?
Edit: Why do we Buddhists have to constantly justify our beliefs on a Buddhist site???????
But Buddhist Hell Realms are okay? They're more compassionate? Not as hot maybe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism)
@Tosh I don't believe that stuff, but at least Buddhist hells aren't any more eternal than Buddhist heavens. There's much less of a problem even if they existed; they'd be way-points between one birth and another. Again I don't actually believe them, in the literal sense. Metaphorically sure.
LOL, no. I'm not fence sitting. I just have an interest in spiritual things. I'm an alcoholic and if I've got a religion it's the 12 Steps (which are very Buddhist if you look at them that way).
I'd burn if I set foot in a church.
Why do we Buddhists have to constantly justify our beliefs on a Buddhist site????
Seriously, check out the Quakers, they might be of interest.
I don't believe in them either and I'm sure many Christians don't believe in the picture you painted of Christian beliefs either.
I'm just playing the devils advocate because it annoys Spiny.
You're a recovering alcoholic.
I posted these ones before:
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4223&Itemid=0
http://the12stepbuddhist.com/
@Tosh Yeah all people aren't Hindus either!
I'm talking about the people who do believe what I've stated, not the ones who don't. No point arguing over the people who don't believe, and missing the point of the argument.
Thanks; they do interest me, but not enough. If anything I'm more drawn to Buddhism. I did do a two year foundation course in Gelug Buddhism, which was pretty scholastic, but towards the end of the course I made the decision to just stick with A.A.. Why? Because of some very 'Buddhist' reasons. I'm more useful there and it really helps my practise of compassion.
I also learn the non-value of mere beliefs too. I've seen alcoholics who believe in God die typical alcoholic deaths (like my father), yet I see atheists recover from their alcoholism by practising some simple spiritual principles (dealing with their pasts, forgiving people who've harmed them, making amends to people they've harmed, trying to be more kind and compassionate for others).
What I'm saying is that people can believe what they want, but it doesn't mean much in real terms. What we do is what counts. And if a belief in God/Karma/Buddha/Englightenment/Hell (Christian)/Hell Realms (Buddhist) helps modify our behaviour in line with reality, then that's a good thing. I really don't believe that 'Truth' needs to be based in reality; the real test of it is in it's transformative effect.
My A.A. sponsor is a Christian, though he strikes me as being more 'Buddhist' than many Buddhists I've met. The man is tough, but he's pure compassion and very wise. You wouldn't believe how many alcoholics he's helped pull out of a Hell Realm; me included.
So can't you combine Buddhist practice with AA? How about something like this: http://www.oprah.com/own-super-soul-sunday/Jack-Kornfield-Four-Principles-for-Mindful-Transformation
Thanks, @DhammaDragon I've got the 12 Step Buddhist book and I'm familiar with the tattooed fella.
Just a small point, I'm 'recovered', not 'recovering'. But to explain this takes us down into A.A. philosophy.
Just an English grammar mistake on my part!
Can you see what you're doing here? You're rejecting a charicature of Christianity but imposing one on Buddhism. It sounds like a Christian apologist sniping at Buddhism.
I think you should just get on and practice Christianity.
Okay, buy a ticket to Thailand, take a tour of BUDDHIST temples in Bangkok AND upcountry, and count the number of huge paintings and even theme parks at temples depicting Buddhist hells (and heavens, at least in the case of paintings). And by the way, those paintings and theme parks are used as teaching tools. Now go to your average Methodist church, or even modern Catholic Church, and see how many times hell is mentioned in sermons.
Tosh can't impose a caricature on Buddhism that's already there.
And what is this obsession you have with "sniping" at Buddhism lately. Some of us didn't just throw our last religion in the trash can and then buy the new religion lock, stock, and barrel. We look for similarities...as well as differences. We look for what works for various people. We don't believe in it's all or nothing at all.
A.A. practise is Buddhist. We've basically got the 8fold path if you look at the three categories:
But I don't consider myself a Buddhist. It wouldn't be helpful to new alcoholics to label myself this way. I label myself as an alcoholic (even though it's been quite a few years since I last drank) because that's a useful label to hold.
If newcomers to A.A. knew I was a Buddhist, they might think I was a bit weird (due to their possible concept of Buddhists) and it may pose a barrier to helping them.
It's just a pointless label for me. Doesn't Buddhism teach us to try and lose the labels? So I don't feel the need to add another.
It's odd how many people think they're recovered, but still go to AA. I think AA is meant as a preventative measure... you never graduate from it, you're there for life replacing one habit with another. Maybe I'm wrong.
Go up to the top of the page. Look at which sub-forum this discussion is in -- comparing religions.
It's not about labels, it's about practice. That's why I suggested the RAIN thing.
You're not only wrong, it's obvious that you don't have a clue. Look, I'm an alcoholic but drinking wasn't my real problem. I may have thought drinking was my problem, at my 'height' (or depth) I was drinking 2 litres of whiskey a day.
But the fact was that drinking was really my SOLUTION to my real problem, which is that I couldn't handle the way I felt sober.
I always took my first drink when I was stone cold sober. Think about it.
Therefore drinking wasn't really the problem; being sober was the REAL problem. In a real sense I didn't have a drinking problem, what I really had was a sobriety problem.
So what have I recovered from? Well it's not my alcoholism; I can never drink safely again; but that's no big deal - I don't need to drink anymore, so long as I remain (in A.A. speak) spiritually fit.
I've recovered from a hopeless state of mind and body.
It's as simple as that.
We neither "threw" nor "bought."
We chose.
@Tosh Stop going to AA meetings and see how long you stay sober. Taking that first drink means you're not recovered, just as becoming angry in Buddhism means you're not enlightened. That's all I'm saying. I love how hard you came down on me; I think you're being defensive because you don't understand, and not the other way around... but I'm done talking to you about this subject (no point getting riled up!).
Again, you just sound like a Christian apologist sniping at Buddhism, it's becoming very tiresome. Clearly you can't make up your mind about which path you really want to follow.
For a while you thought you were a secular Buddhist, then a secular religionist or something?
If you want to be a "Christo-Buddhist", that's fine, but please don't expect the rest of us to be one, and please don't expect the rest of us to adopt your idiosyncratic view of the world.
As I said to Tosh, the labels aren't important anyway, what's important is how we practise.
The fellowship in a congenial sangha is essential to one's faring well in the spiritual path.
It must be the same with AA meetings, Aldris.
Besides, you have the opportunity to do some helping yourself.
Go up to the top of the page. Look at which sub-forum this discussion is in -- comparing religions.
Probably in the wrong forum then, because the OP is about comparing different approaches to Buddhism.
@Aldris, did you even read what I wrote? How am I not recovered? I've just ran a marathon, I'm running a 42 mile ultra marathon in May which takes me through a bunch of mountains - currently training for it now. I feel strong and extremely fit, I have some peace in my life (to run distance you need to be peaceful because you're a long time in your head), I have a happy home life (Mrs Tosh works and runs with me) I haven't drank in years - in what way am I unwell? Just because I can't drink booze safely? Get a life.
For your information 'recovered' comes from this line in the Big Book:
Notice what they've recovered from (hopeless state of mind and body). And I don't go to A.A. meetings to stay sober. If that worked everyone who went to meetings would stay sober, but they don't. I go to A.A. meetings to give back what I've been given. I put out tables and chairs, help set the room up, make coffee; to do a little service.
Can we all just breathe and try at least to be nice to each other? We all have our journeys to walk, our experiences to recount and to lean on, and our perceptions to evaluate and determine as skilful or otherwise.
I don't wish to appear namby-pamby, but I've had it up to ~here~ (*brushes hand horizontally at least a foot above head*) with worthless, pointless, aimless bickering and egotistic insistence. Here and everywhere else, currently.
I'm fed up with trying to evaluate what is justified and what is Ego - both in my actions and those of others!
Simmer down, gentlemen, and be civilised towards one another.
I'd be grateful.
@AldrisTorvalds started it first, Fede, you ought to send him to the naughty step.
You're all on the naughty step.
Hang on.
One each. separate staircases.
Houses.
Streets.
Towns.
No, St Paul started first.
Sorry, I meant...
He hurled the stone and hid the hand.
For a while you thought you were a secular Buddhist, then a secular religionist or something?
If you want to be a "Christo-Buddhist", that's fine, but please don't expect the rest of us to be one, and please don't expect the rest of us to adopt your idiosyncratic view of the world.
As I said to Tosh, the labels aren't important anyway, what's important is how we practise.
You are analyzing my position incorrectly.
Some of us are on a journey, while a few seem to have arrived. You seem to be the latter. Good for you! You've sorted everything out. Good for you! Please allow the rest of us to struggle along our own path.
Others can decide whether or not my analysis of your position is correct. Anyway, the thread is supposed to be about approaches to Buddhism.
The thread begins: "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."
Whatever. :-/ .
I'd be sad if I considered this my thread, at how it devolved a bit, and how I may have been part of that. Luckily this is "our" thread, and posterity's thread, so I agree with @federica that we should just get back on topic if we can.
I did wish people would watch the video and then discuss those parallels that Alan Wallace brought up, even if the Buddhist tradition he was speaking about wasn't necessarily your own. I was surprised by quite a few of them, and they brought me closer in spirit with those practitioners (and even Christians who value a contemplative practice).