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.
Often we think all the religions arose separately.
This is contrary to the law of cause & effect.
The Buddha himself borrowed concentration meditation to achieve his enlightenment based in wisdom.
The Buddha was a superstar. History attests to this. By the time of Christ, Buddhism had spread to most of the known world, including Greece, Egypt and even Britain I once read somewhere.
It is obvious others borrowed heavily from him (just like Buddha borrowed from those before him).
My impression is you have never studied the Buddha's words to discern how clearly he looked into and described reality.
Really...there is nothing that compares. Nothing even comes close.
He was a genius of spiritual, mental, social and moral science.
Quite the contrary. I have studied the words of Buddha, I have studied sects of Buddhism, and I have studied Buddhists. I find all three resonate quite differently. I agree that Buddha had a clear understanding of phenomena, and taught in a subjective manner that was genius. I find buddhist teachers and writers to hold deep and resounding wisdom.
To assert that Buddhism is the alpha of all religions is simply too much, in my opinion, because no matter how clear the Buddha was, he was still only pointing to natural phenomena, which ascribing to buddhism seems like a silly and slippery grasping.
For instance, can you really assert that Jesus found what he did through the study of buddhism, rather than observing the universe?
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 April 2010
Can you assert he didn't, given that Buddhism preceded Christianity by around 500 years....?
It's a possibility, wouldn't you say.....?
Can you assert he didn't, given that Buddhism preceded Christianity by around 500 years....?
It's a possibility, wouldn't you say.....?
Just because one system, explanation or method is older than another is far from being proof of its truth. If that were the case, we would still be building ziggurats or worshipping the Ennead.
Certainly, Buddhist 'missionaries' were present in Alexandria at the turn of the Era, but in the light of the fact that the Greeks were developing their innovative system of philosophy and Hebrew prophets like Jeremiah were proposing new visions of God at about the same time as Buddhism and Jainism arose suggests that something fundamental in the human psyche was going on around 500 BCE.
That one person finds a useful description of the universe they inhabit from one system rather than another is, to the modern mind, a matter of personal choice. We can 'promote' our own favourite but it takes a certain arrogance to assert that this or that is the only view - as the varieties of Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or olympic sports testify.
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 April 2010
I was merely stating that discounting any possibility was speculative.
given the speed with which information whizzes round the planet today, compared to the way it did 3000 years qgo, everything 'then', is hypothesis.
I was merely stating that discounting any possibility was speculative.
given the speed with which information whizzes round the planet today, compared to the way it did 3000 years qgo, everything 'then', is hypothesis.
Really....:)
Indeed, as an historian and amateur archaeologist, I agree that the past is a different country. This means that, if we accept that we are simply spinning stories based on limited evidence, that we must apply precisely the same criteria to the reported words and actions of the Historical Buddha. We cannot assert that we have some sort of 'inerrancy' which we deny to others without turning to some sort of fundamentalism.
You say, dearest sister Fede, that you tried to reconcile a Christianity with your Buddhism for 10 years and then gave up. Please accept that some of us (surely I am not alone? No, I know others like me) who have found the common ground and we are aware that others are on the same path. That the Jesus and Buddha messages do not illuminate each other on your path does not mean that they are not lamps to others.
Neo-paganism and Tibetan Buddhism, with its roots in Bon, have found common ground as, for example, when the lamas sent to take the tulku born in Aotearoa (New Zealand) made offerings to the local, Maori deities. I have referred elsewhere to Celtic Buddhism, which is a small, new lineage.
"Why is society rent by such bitter conflicts — conflicts that pit nobles against nobles, brahmans against brahmans, householders against householders?" To this the elder replies: "It is because of sensual lust, attachment, greed, and obsession with sensual pleasures, that nobles fight with nobles, brahmans with brahmans, householders with householders."
Next Aramadanda asked: "Why is it that recluses fight with recluses?" And Maha Kaccana replies: "It is because of lust for views, attachment, greed, and obsession with views, that recluses fight with recluses."
Can you assert he didn't, given that Buddhism preceded Christianity by around 500 years....?
It's a possibility, wouldn't you say.....?
I do not make assertions that it was or that it wasn't, only saying that making a solid interpretation of origins is slippery and disquieting, very much for the same reasons you offer.
I remember a vehement Christian who insisted that the Buddha learned from Jesus. Its ridiculous, yes, as historic timelines do not match, but it shows how some people cling to their idols despite it being contrary to wisdom.
I am not sure the teachings of Jesus about hell can compare to the Buddha's teachings about hell.
Look here at your own risk!
Pretty awful stuff. I have been thinking very critically about Buddhism the past few days...my conclusion is that the question asking whether, Buddha and Jesus work together, may be like asking if excrement and vomit work well together. Buddhism is at least 50% Bull poop just like any other religion, but the remaining 50% that is valuable and good for humanity may be better than, and in fact irreconcilable with, Christianity.
You keep saying "Christianity" as if it were a single entity, yet we have shown you that it is many. Will you admit that it is a part of the Christian family which holds view you dislike?
I ask you again, TM: what do you understand by Orthodox Christianity?
Orthodox Christianity is all the typical sects that believe in one God, Jesus as the one and true Savior, and the Bible is the true and inerrant word of God.
Orthodox could refer to any sect that is not mystical or Gnostic basically.
Orthodox Christianity is all the typical sects that believe in one God, Jesus as the one and true Savior, and the Bible is the true and inerrant word of God.
Orthodox could refer to any sect that is not mystical or Gnostic basically.
Thank you for the clarification, Trans. I have been misunderstanding you. Over here, the denomination styled "Orthodox Christianity" refers to Christians of the Greek, Russian and Serbian traditions, dating back as a separate entity, like the Roman tradition to the Great Schism in the Eleventh century. It has, of course, a rich mystical tradition and no belief in "inerrancy", not being post-Luther, so you will perhaps forgive my confusion.
As I understand it, you are referring to what are termed (over her at least) Evangelical churches, some of which are deemed 'fundamentalist'. Am I right? If that is so, I would agree that their form of theology would be very hard to reconcile with Buddhism. Fortunately, Christianity being an offshoot of Judaism it has the notion of the "remnant", and there remain a substantial remnant of us who take a different view of the Jesus message and its effect on action, mindset and practice.
Thank you for the clarification, Trans. I have been misunderstanding you. Over here, the denomination styled "Orthodox Christianity" refers to Christians of the Greek, Russian and Serbian traditions, dating back as a separate entity, like the Roman tradition to the Great Schism in the Eleventh century. It has, of course, a rich mystical tradition and no belief in "inerrancy", not being post-Luther, so you will perhaps forgive my confusion.
As I understand it, you are referring to what are termed (over her at least) Evangelical churches, some of which are deemed 'fundamentalist'. Am I right? If that is so, I would agree that their form of theology would be very hard to reconcile with Buddhism. Fortunately, Christianity being an offshoot of Judaism it has the notion of the "remnant", and there remain a substantial remnant of us who take a different view of the Jesus message and its effect on action, mindset and practice.
Oh, ok. Sorry for the confusion. I should have clarified the terms.
Yet another red herring fallacy. This in no way counters my argument. Also, I never said that Buddhism and drug taking are compatible. There are things that I don't consider "intoxicants" (the actual word he used, not drugs) and shrooms are non-toxic. Yet here you are probably consuming all these other drugs/intoxicants like caffiene, aspartame, flouride (in drinking fountains), msg, aspirin, etc.
Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. He said the meek would inherit the earth. He said to love thy enemy. He said if one cheek is slapped, offer the other.
He also said, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27). Must have been in a bad mood that day.
If someone is interested, Nietzsche found what he felt is a common base between christianity and Buddhism, namely that they are both nihilistic and decadent. See The Antichrist, chapter 20
He also said, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27). Must have been in a bad mood that day.
It was part of a parable:
11As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12He said therefore, "A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, 'Engage in business until I come.' 14But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.' 15When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16The first came before him, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.' 17And he said to him, 'Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.' 18And the second came, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made five minas.' 19And he said to him, 'And you are to be over five cities.' 20Then another came, saying, 'Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; 21for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.' 22He said to him, 'I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?' 24And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.' 25And they said to him, 'Lord, he has ten minas!' 26'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'"
From what I understand, Hinduism is a relatively modern term that's used to describe a diverse collection of Indian spiritual traditions, many of which arose after the Buddha's lifetime.
The Buddha was one of the great wandering ascetics (Pali: samana, Skt: shramana) who taught in the later Vedic Period, and whose teachings were considered heterodox because they rejected the authority of the Vedas. The most prominent "orthodox" tradition in northern India at that time was Brahmanism, which, of course, relied heavily on the Vedas for their religious authority, and included some of the early Upanishads as well.
While many people think of the the Buddha as a reformer of Brahmanism, I think it's more correct to say that he replaced it with his own unique philosophy, often redefining many of the key philosophical terms and concepts of his contemporaries, giving them his own meaning and context. This is clearly documented with a variety of words such as brahmin, kamma, khandha, nibbana, etc.
The Buddha was also an expert at word play, especially puns (which don't always translate well into English), and many of these were in reference to passages from the Vedas and Upanishads. Much of this was apparently lost on later Buddhist commentators, but has since been rediscovered by modern scholarship and textual analysis.
11As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12He said therefore, "A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, 'Engage in business until I come.' 14But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.' 15When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16The first came before him, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.' 17And he said to him, 'Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.' 18And the second came, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made five minas.' 19And he said to him, 'And you are to be over five cities.' 20Then another came, saying, 'Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; 21for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.' 22He said to him, 'I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?' 24And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.' 25And they said to him, 'Lord, he has ten minas!' 26'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'"
Thank you for posting the whole parable. As with all stories with a moral, it is the whole story that we must consider and Jesus is very clear about the king here: he is a tyrant who fears neither man nor God. What is more, he is a foreign nobleman who takes over a kingdom. The contemporary listener/reader would immediately think of Herod the Great and the Roman rulers who imposed a non-Judaean rule and were notorious for cruelty.
The servants who made money were collaborators, willing or unwilling. The one who didn't was the only one who followed the divine injunction to oppose the tyrant. Within the written Gospel context, we cannot ignore Luke's version of Hannah's Song, which is now called the Magnificat:
"He has put down the mighty from their seats."
The story is, in fact, a warning: oppose the powerful, as we are told to do, and it will go hard with you. Others may profit, here and now, from the king's favour but, as the Psalmist has it: "Put not your trust in princes" (Ps. 146)
The nobleman/king in this story is not the Father-God of whom Jesus spoke but an example of the corrupt human kingship against which Samuel warned. Jesus' opposition to human kingship is evident all through the Gospels and he declares that his kingdom is unlike any earthly one, i.e. it is God's "holy mountain".
Once again, this time in the form of a story, Jesus is warning that following the path of righteousness (and I think we may also say the Noble Eightfold Path) will bring us into conflict with the rich and powerful, with painful results - as our brothers and sisters in Tibet are demonstrating once again.
Yeah, but the Upanishads and the "religion" that followed came before Buddha was even born.
I hate to seem overly pedantic and argumentative, Transmetaphysical, but I think you're only partially right. As I already mentioned, the Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas, which included the early Upanishads, so I think it's fair to say that Brahmanism and some of the early forms of Vedanta pre-dated the Buddha.
The point I was trying to make, however, is that "Hinduism" is a relatively modern term that's used to describe a diverse collection of Indian spiritual traditions, many of which arose after the Buddha's lifetime. This would include later developments in Vedanta (especially Advaita Vedanta), which was built around the growing collection of the more mystical Upanishads rather than the ritualistic Vedas, as well as a great deal of what we consider Hinduism today.
Much of the Mahabharata, including the Bhagavad Gita, for example, was most likely composed after the Buddha's lifetime, as was the Ramayana and the majority of the Puranas. So, in my opinion, I think it's rather misleading to say that Buddhism came after Hinduism.
I hate to seem overly pedantic and argumentative, Transmetaphysical, but I think you're only partially right. As I already mentioned, the Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas, which included the early Upanishads, so I think it's fair to say that Brahmanism and some of the early forms of Vedanta pre-dated the Buddha.
The point I was trying to make, however, is that "Hinduism" is a relatively modern term that's used to describe a diverse collection of Indian spiritual traditions, many of which arose after the Buddha's lifetime. This would include later developments in Vedanta (especially Advaita Vedanta), which was built around the growing collection of the more mystical Upanishads rather than the ritualistic Vedas, and a great deal of what we consider Hinduism today.
Much of the Mahabharata, including the Bhagavad Gita, for example, was most likely composed after the Buddha's lifetime, as was the Ramayana and the majority of the Puranas. So, in my opinion, I think it's rather misleading to say that Buddhism came after Hinduism.
Not pedantic, Jason. A useful clarification. Thank you.
Some of the teachings of Christianity are irreconcilable with Buddhism, for example those of monotheism, Jesus as the literal son of God and the saviour of humanity, one life and one judgement after death.
However it seems that many of the practices are complementary. Thomas Merton is an example of a Catholic monk who gained a great deal from Buddhist teachings and was working hard on interfaith reconciliation at his death. He was even attending a conference on Buddhism when he died. Thich Nhat Hanh has also written a book about the complementarity of the teachings of Buddha and Jesus, 'Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers'.
Thank you for posting the whole parable. As with all stories with a moral, it is the whole story that we must consider and Jesus is very clear about the king here: he is a tyrant who fears neither man nor God. What is more, he is a foreign nobleman who takes over a kingdom. The contemporary listener/reader would immediately think of Herod the Great and the Roman rulers who imposed a non-Judaean rule and were notorious for cruelty.
The servants who made money were collaborators, willing or unwilling. The one who didn't was the only one who followed the divine injunction to oppose the tyrant. Within the written Gospel context, we cannot ignore Luke's version of Hannah's Song, which is now called the Magnificat:
"He has put down the mighty from their seats."
The story is, in fact, a warning: oppose the powerful, as we are told to do, and it will go hard with you. Others may profit, here and now, from the king's favour but, as the Psalmist has it: "Put not your trust in princes" (Ps. 146)
The nobleman/king in this story is not the Father-God of whom Jesus spoke but an example of the corrupt human kingship against which Samuel warned. Jesus' opposition to human kingship is evident all through the Gospels and he declares that his kingdom is unlike any earthly one, i.e. it is God's "holy mountain".
Once again, this time in the form of a story, Jesus is warning that following the path of righteousness (and I think we may also say the Noble Eightfold Path) will bring us into conflict with the rich and powerful, with painful results - as our brothers and sisters in Tibet are demonstrating once again.
You're right, my dear friend; context is indeed important, and I while I was just trying to be cheeky, I did take that passage out of context. Truth be told, I'm not very familiar with the Bible, and I must admit that the literary style of the New Testament often confuses me.
Rereading this parable, I can see what you're saying, but I can also see how it can be interpreted as having a duel meaning. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, for example, include this note in their 1871 Commentary On the Whole Bible:
bring hither, &c.-(Compare 1Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Christ.
This only makes sense to me, however, in the context of more "orthodox" or "evangelical" Christian theology, and Jesus is alluding to himself as the "King of kings" in Revelations 19:16, but I'm not a very big fan of Revelations myself. In fact, I've been meaning to get a hold of a copy of Jefferson's Bible, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, because I think I might actually like.
bring hither, &c.-(Compare 1Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Christ.
This only makes sense to me, however, in the context of more "orthodox" or "evangelical" Christian theology, and Jesus was alluding to himself as the "King of kings" in Revelations 19:16, but I'm not a very big fan of Revelations myself. IN fact, I've been meaning to get a hold of a copy of Jefferson's Bible, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, because I think I might actually like.
I don't agree. When I hear that parable and the words around it, I hear him as saying that anyone who opposes the Christ will be ultimately destroyed... not as himself, but closer to saying "Those that fight against the dhamma will be destroyed"... where in the present moment, he was the representation of the force of nature that the Jews called God.
I remember having to reflect deeply on the ideas of murder against ideas (in a few of Chogam Trungpa's books), even needing more reflection from my teacher... finally seeing that it was not speaking of the aggressions, but speaking of the force of energy. I can only imagine how little substance a prince would have in his arguments with a Buddha.
When people use the word "Hindu" to describe religion in the Buddha's time, they are usually committing an anachronism. They are usually assuming that the religion of his time was essentially the same as modern Saivism or Ganesh worship, possibly with different gods. Hinduism has been influenced by both Jainism and Buddhism. There's been a lot of borrowing back and forth, as well as doctrines being created in reaction against another religion. In their modern forms, Hinduism and Buddhism are both products of the Indian heterogeneous mix of religions, as well as being products of their own original contributions.
Another problem with the word "Hindu" is that it has become associated with Hindu ultra-nationalism, and the rather dubious claims the ultra-nationalists make for early Indian religion and society. Historians usually use "late vedic religion" to refer to the religious environment at the Buddha's time, or use the term "Brahmanism" to refer to a specific set of myths and rituals. But even there, the Brahmanism of the Buddha's time was not modern Brahmanism.
And finally, the term "Hindu" was introduced in India in the twelfth century by Muslim invaders, and it originally meant "not Muslim". Obviously, neither the term nor the concept existed in the Buddha's time.
All in all, it's probably better not to call someone Hindu unless they identify themselves as Hindu, or to call a religion Hindu unless the people who practice it identify it as Hindu. While there's clear continuity between modern and early Indian religion, I wouldn't use the term "Hindu" for anything prior to the Muslim invasions.
bring hither, &c.-(Compare 1Sa 15:32, 33). Referring to the awful destruction of Jerusalem, but pointing to the final destruction of all that are found in open rebellion against Christ.
This still seems to be the scholarly consensus, and it makes sense in the context. Later in the same chapter Luke has Jesus lament the upcoming destruction of the temple. The general theme of Luke is Jesus' place as the last in a line of divinely chosen teachers. The previous teachers had come for Israel, but Jesus came for everyone. Since Jesus is last, this is the last chance to accept God's message.
The parables tend to reflect everyday life in Palestine in Jesus' day. When Luke was writing, rule over Israel had been insecure for over two hundred years, and insecure rulers tend to be brutal. The parable reflects both the insecurity and the brutality.
This still seems to be the scholarly consensus, and it makes sense in the context. Later in the same chapter Luke has Jesus lament the upcoming destruction of the temple. The general theme of Luke is Jesus' place as the last in a line of divinely chosen teachers. The previous teachers had come for Israel, but Jesus came for everyone. Since Jesus is last, this is the last chance to accept God's message.
The parables tend to reflect everyday life in Palestine in Jesus' day. When Luke was writing, rule over Israel had been insecure for over two hundred years, and insecure rulers tend to be brutal. The parable reflects both the insecurity and the brutality.
Luke's Christianity was the one that eventually became "orthodox". So I think a more "orthodox" theology is the proper context.
You are trying to read the parable both in and out of context. I do suggest that you re-read the text: Jesus specifically says that the 'king' is abusive and unjust, whereas he also emphasises elsewhere (passim) the just and loving nature of the Father-God he is teaching about.
Just what sort of God do you think he is teaching? If, indeed, the interpretation you seem to prefer is correct (which I assure you it is not), then JC is calling on us to be morally superior to this same God.
The passages about destruction were clearly written back into the story after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, who were exemplars of injustice and the use of quislings and collaborators.
You are trying to read the parable both in and out of context. I do suggest that you re-read the text: Jesus specifically says that the 'king' is abusive and unjust, whereas he also emphasises elsewhere (passim) the just and loving nature of the Father-God he is teaching about.
I read four different translations and I can't find any place where Luke has Jesus "specifically" saying that the ruler was "abusive and unjust".
I really believe that you are ignoring the context. One of Luke's themes is the idea that Jesus will return as a messiah/king, and he explicitly states that Jesus told this parable because some people thought the kingdom of God was about to appear. The parable is obviously about a ruler who is going to be away for a while, and how he will judge people when he returns.
An important part of the literary style of the parables is exaggeration and shock. These were stories that were deliberately told in a way that would get people's attention and ensure that the stories were remembered. You seem to be trying to interpret this parable in a way that removes this aspect of the style.
Just what sort of God do you think he is teaching?
Who is teaching, Jesus or Luke? I have no idea what sort of God Jesus was teaching. The historical fictions we call the Gospels don't provide us with reliable evidence. The sort of god that Luke was teaching was obviously the sort of God that modern "orthodox" Christianity teaches, which is to say a god who harshly punishes those who don't follow his teachings.
If, indeed, the interpretation you seem to prefer is correct (which I assure you it is not), then JC is calling on us to be morally superior to this same God.
You'll have to explain where in the parable or the context you find this.
The passages about destruction were clearly written back into the story after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, who were exemplars of injustice and the use of quislings and collaborators.
The consensus among scholars is that Luke was written after the destruction of the temple, and the general scholarly understanding of Luke is based on that.
The material in the Gospels that is most likely to have come from Jesus is the stuff from Q. But even that shows signs of having been expanded on after Jesus' death. The next most reliable material may be the parables. Their counter-intuitive style strongly suggests that they share a common inspiration, if not a common author. But we still have no way of knowing whether a particular parable came from Jesus. Luke and Matthew were obviously borrowing from the same collection of parables, or at least similar collections of parables. But since we don't have that collection of parables, it's difficult to estimate how reliable it is as a source of Jesus' teachings.
As for the parable in question, if you compare it with the version in Matthew, it's obvious that Luke added in the bits about the ruler. And that reinforces the point I've been making about what Luke was trying to say.
Your version of Jesus is an attractive one, but it's not Luke, and Luke is what we're discussing.
For a start of comparative study of Christianity and Buddhism, one should look at the Christian virtues and compare them to Buddhism. They are theCardinal_virtues and the Theological_virtues
He also said, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27). Must have been in a bad mood that day.
Well, this was part of a parable. This one is always taken out of context.
Buddha says God is irrelevant and Enlightenment and Nirvana is the purpose
Hi learned audience,
Both schools are on attainment, and not about reconciliation.
According to Buddhism, Buddha was born as Prince named Siddhartha. He became awakened to the absolute truth of all phenomena (the Dharma), and then identified his dharma name as Buddha Shakyamuni, referring to living beings nature namely Buddha as enlightenment; Shakya as benevolence, and "Muni" as prajna and/or samadhi - The unity of entity and its functions. When Buddha says God is irrelevant, He is referring to the 28 Realm of the Gods (Devaloka):
In the Desire Realm, there are:
1) Heavens of the Four Deva-kings,
2) Trayastrimsa,
3) Yama Deva (Dwelling of Yama),
4) Tusita,
5) Nirmanarati,
6) Paranirmitavasavartin (Dwelling of Mara).
In the Form Realm, there are:
(a) The First Meditative Heavens which consist of:
7) Brahmakayika [assembly of Brahmadevas],
8) Brahmapurohita [retinue of Brahma],
9) Mahabrahman [Brahman himself]);
(b) The Second Meditative Heavens which consist of:
10) Parittab- has [Minor Light],
11) Apramanabha [Infinite Light],
12) Abhasvara [Light and Sound]);
(c) The Third Meditative Heavens which consist of:
13) Parittasubha [Minor Purity],
14) Apramanasubha [Boundless Purity],
15) Subhakrtsna [Universal Purity]);
(d) The Fourth Meditative Heavens which consist of:
16) Punyaprasva [Born to Happiness],
17) Happiness in Love,
18) Brhatphala [Fruitful],
19) Asanjnisattva [No Thought],
20) Avhra [No Vexation],
21) Atapas [No Heat],
22) Sudrsa [Beautiful],
23) Sudarsana [Beautiful Appearance]
24) Akanisthas [End of Form].
In the Formless Realm, there are:
25) Akasanantyayatana (Abode of Infinite Space),
26) Vijnananantyayatana (Limitlessness of Consciousness),
27) Akincanyayatana (Non-Existing),
28) Naivasamjnanasamjnanayatana (Neither Thinking nor Non-thinking).
I was raised Roman Catholic. I was taught that our religion based on scripture and tradition, and our concept of sin and redemption, are really frameworks upon which to hang our purpose, which is to emulate Christ in word, deed, and (most importantly) thought. This framework is not so rigid that it necessarily excludes alternate approaches, so long as the end-product is a Christ-like nature. The study and practice of Buddhism I find to be not only compatible with my beliefs, but personally helpful in developing my mind in the direction of Christ, beyond mere words or action.
I've seen that there are people who call themselves Buddhist Christians or those who try to show how they are compatible. Or some people were brought up Christian and want to keep parts of Christianity with them in their Buddhist practices.
I agree that both religions teach compassion and good deeds. But I simply have to say that Buddhism is not, has not, and never will be compatible with Christianity. The philosophies are entirely different and that's actually something I can appreciate. I don't feel that there should be one single philosophy that everyone agrees on. As Dalai Lama said, everyone has different mental dispositions and different philosophies satisfy different people.
There is no need to strip down Christianity or Buddhism just to blend them into one agreeable philosophy. It's not even possible to do so. Just like there is no need to reconcile the philosophy of Spinoza with the philosophy of Kant. Accept that they are different and appreciate them for what they are. (I am a formal debater and I may debate til my death over which is better, but i would be disappointed if I were to actually succeed to convince you.)
Contrast:
- Buddha says God is irrelevant and Enlightenment and Nirvana is the purpose. Christianity says eternal life with God is the ultimate goal.
- Buddha says believe nothing, even if he has said it, unless it agrees with your own reasoning. Jesus says believe and have faith, only in him, and he will grant you salvation.
- Buddha said all beliefs are barriers to knowing the truth; be silent and know. Christianity says belief is a virtue and required to get to heaven.
- Buddhism transcends the fight between good and evil and accepts that both are necessary because one can't exist without the other. Christianity wants good to triumph over evil.
There are many other differences, but these are some major reasons why they're incompatible.
(This is something I felt that needs to be said, because if I see something that doesn't seem right to me, I will not hesitate to point it out and express my views.)
Edit: I would like to clarify that I am referring to Orthodox Christianity (fundamentalist as opposed to mystical or Gnostic).
.
Hi Transmetaphysical
As a Christian I would agree wholeheartedly with your statement.
I hope budhists and christians can have mutual respect and understanding of each other however. They are indeed very different outlooks on the world, and the nature of self.
I think it all boils down to interpretation. If we accept the Gospel of Truth, of Thomas, Mary, the Holy Twelve and so forth, as truthful in their teaching then it is difficult to see a rift between the two religions. If we see only the Bible texts as canonical/authentic then it's quite easy (although not necessary) to suppose they are at odds. The differences (where they are not simply didiactic, cultural etc.) seems to arise from interpretations, not from any direct contradictions between the two teachings. After all, even the Bible says that it is given to us to 'partake of the perpetual'.
Whether these contradictory interpretations are errant, as I believe they are, is a question that is difficult to sort out, but I don't think either side in the discussion can ever finally win out, since there will always be about as many interpreations as there are people. Still, the work of Armstrong, Pagels, Freke, Gandy etc. may be swaying opinion in the direction of a reconciliation.
It seems unfortuante that the Roman Church opted out of the original collegiate and decided to start laying down the law as suited themselves. It means that even within the Christian church we have two distinct versions of Christianity, one very much at odds with Buddhism and one more or less consistent with it.
My personal view, for what it's worth, is that both Jesus and Buddha knew the truth.
You make a useful point, Florian, and we could sum it up by noticing that the Buddhisms and many churches, rather than Christianity, refuse to be reconcilable. But then, Buddhist sects and Christian churches appear to refuse to be reconciled with each other. Even within traditions people get all het up with each other: consider the arguments within the Anglican Communion or the rioting adherents of the two Karmapas.
Yeah. Even on this site there is strong opposition to the idea that both religions derive from the same source. Centuries of ecclesiastical Chinese whispers have wreaked havoc with our understanding. We are, after all, the survivors of the Tower of Babel fiasco.
One said:
‘What shall I do to be answered?’
El Shah answered:
‘You shall avoid those who imagine themselves to be the People of Salvation. They think that they are saved, or that they have the means to save. In reality, they are all but lost.
‘These are the people, like today’s Magians, Jews and Christians, who recite dramatic tales, threaten and cajole many times in succession with the same admonitions, They cry out that you must become committed to their creed.
‘The result of this is an imitation, a sentimentalist. Anyone can be "given" this spurious type of belief, and can be made to feel that it is real faith.
‘But this is not the original Way of Zoroaster, of Moses, of Jesus. It is the method discovered by desperate men for the inclusion in their ranks of large numbers."
Hazrat Bahaudin Naqshband
In Idries Shah, ‘Caravan of Dreams’,
Is it not intolerant, rigid and so forth to say that deeply sincere Christians have a spurious understanding if their faith does not see the common root held to be true in your understanding?
What does reconciling mean when it means that people must abandon there honest views, and adopt another that may go against their deepest principles? That is what it would mean for the Christians I know if reconciliation meant adopting the interpretations you hold to be uniquely privileged.
The AQAL Model of integration is pretty good in that it allows the truth claims of different religions and different modes of different religions to remain intact on their own terms. This is IMO more skillful than asserting a unity that selectively discredits one persons religious beliefs and affirms another because it accords with yet another "one truth" belief system.
"Integralism" regardless of its flaws as a pop movement, seems to have legs.
Richard. Greetings. I thought we'd soon be discussing this one again.
You ask whether it is intolerant, rigid and so forth to say that deeply sincere Christians have a spurious understanding if their faith does not see the common root held to be true in my understanding? I presume you think it is.
I'd say a person can claim that some other person's understanding is spurious however deeply and sincerely the other person holds it without a trace of intolerance. After all, the Buddha did it all the time. Does he not ask us to to abandon all views except his? At any rate, the question shows that I've not expained myself well.
I'll assume you would agree that either Christian and Buddhist doctrine is/are consistent or not. I can see no other alternative. It is not intolerant, therefore, to claim that there are good reasons to suppose that they are consistent. They might be, unless and until someone shows that they are not. If you can do that then we can immediately stop disagreeing.
And would it not be intolerant and rigid to suppose that these religions are not consistent just because you can't find an interpretation of Christianity that fits your interpretation of Buddhism? I can do this, so our disagreement is only about how you and me should interpret these doctrines. One of us is wrong, and all we need do is establish which it is. All this has got nothing to do with intolerance or rigidity. After all, since so many Buddhists and Christians share my view I can be sure there is nothing intolerant in holding it.
My view would be, in light of a widespread agreement among practitioners that these two religions share the same origin, that it is up to objectors to find some counter-evidence. Without that there's nothing here to get our teeth into. I could make an argument, and have presented one at some length in a dissertion elsewhere, but really it would be easier to deal with specific objections than try to prove the unprovable. If you have an objection, an instance where the two religions are inconsistent, then let's focus on that and see where it takes us.
Still, it is odd that we don't agree. Do you not hear bells ringing when in the Gnostic Gospels Jesus is given the words, 'Sin, as such, does not exist'? Or that Mohammed advises, 'An hour's contemplation is worth a year's worship'? This is the Christianity and Islam that I'm suggesting is consistent with Buddhist doctrine, just in case there's any doubt.
Your paragraph about the AQAL model, whatever that is, is a suprise. I thought it was you who were claiming that only Buddhism is true. I'm suggesting that they're all true, which means that your objection is well off target. I have to work quite hard to think of a religion I'd want to discredit. I did try it once with three Jehova's Witnesses who came round for tea, not a bright idea, but I had no thought of discrediting the Bible.
You ask whether it is intolerant, rigid and so forth to say that deeply sincere Christians have a spurious understanding if their faith does not see the common root held to be true in your understanding? I presume you think it is. .
The view of a common root is a view among views, held just the same as those you consider spurious. It can contract into a hard intolerant position just the same as other views, my own included.
I'd say a person can claim that some other person's understanding is spurious however deeply and sincerely the other person holds it without a trace of intolerance.
After all, the Buddha did it all the time..[/Does he not ask us to to abandon all views except his? .
He asks those who wish to realize the end of suffering as he prescribes to do so, it is not a compulsion for everyone, or a final metaphysical claim. The Buddhas views are skillful means, a raft. They are in the end let go of.
I'll assume you would agree that either Christian and Buddhist doctrine is/are consistent or not. I can see no other alternative. It is not intolerant, therefore, to claim that there are good reasons to suppose that they are consistent. They might be, unless and until someone shows that they are not. If you can do that then we can immediately stop disagreeing. .
It is consistent for some inconsistent for others, as they declare it. My view is that it can be interpreted as both consistent and inconsistent. I would prefer consistency because it is a nice idea, but defer to others to interpret it their way.
And would it not be intolerant and rigid to suppose that these religions are not consistent just because you can't find an interpretation of Christianity that fits your interpretation of Buddhism?.
One of us is wrong, and all we need do is establish which it is. All this has got nothing to do with intolerance or rigidity. After all, since so many Buddhists and Christians share my view I can be sure there is nothing intolerant in holding it. .
My view would be, in light of a widespread agreement among practitioners that these two religions share the same origin,that it is up to objectors to find some counter-evidence. Without that there's nothing here to get our teeth into. I could make an argument, and have presented one at some length in a desertion elsewhere, but really it would be easier to deal with specific objections than try to prove the unprovable. If you have an objection, an instance where the two religions are inconsistent, then let's focus on that and see where it takes us. ,.
Living with and being a part of the Buddhist community in both the Theravada and Mahayana traditions for over twenty years. I can say first hand this claim is simply not true. Some share your view, some don't, and most do not have have a strong opinion. If you have proven a single source to your satisfaction, and feel this is very important, thats great, but your claim about the views of Buddhist practitioners is just silly and ill informed, no offense. We don't have a "widespread agreement". It's not for me to prove anything. I accept your honest views 100% as your honest views.
Still, it is odd that we don't agree. Do you not hear bells ringing when in the Gnostic Gospels Jesus is given the words, 'Sin, as such, does not exist'? Or that Mohammed advises, 'An hour's contemplation is worth a year's worship'? This is the Christianity and Islam that I'm suggesting is consistent with Buddhist doctrine, just in case there's any doubt. .
I like the idea of all religions having a single source. It's a great idea.
Your paragraph about the AQAL model, whatever that is, is a surprise. I thought it was you who were claiming that only Buddhism is true. I'm suggesting that they're all true, which means that your objection is well off target. I have to work quite hard to think of a religion I'd want to discredit. I did try it once with three Jehova's Witnesses who came round for tea, not a bright idea, but I had no thought of discrediting the Bible.
AQAL is kind of like what you are talking about but better suited for reconciliation as it does not call anyones faith spurious. This guy is pretty good as well.....
Ah. I see. You don't take metaphysics seriously. Is that it? Is it that you believe the Buddha asks us not to think about these things because there is no truth of the matter? Is this on the basis that metaphysics is asking questions about the arrow instead of treating the wound? It is surely true that metaphysics, or more generally logic, is not the road to Heaven. But this is not to say that metaphysics is a waste of time, since it at least acts as a signpost, 'an antidote to dogmatic superstition' as Bradley puts it. Nagarjuna certainly didn't believe that it is a waste of time, since he goes to great lengths to logically prove the truth of the Buddha's metapysical position. That is, he proves that all views are false except his own. I can do this as well, and so could you if you wanted to, as long as your view is consistent with his. It's surprisingly easy.
I must stress that I did not call anyone's faith spurious. Faith is faith. I'm talking about what's true and what's false according to logic and experience. A person's metaphysical theories may well be spurious, and so also may be their interpretation of the scriptures in which they have their faith, and so may be their interpretation of their own experience in meditation. As the Upanishads advise, we must use our reason to distinguish fact from fantasy. The Dalai Lama advises us to abandon anything that contradicts logic, and I like to know which is which. I can't imagine what it's like not to care whether your own view is right or wrong
I'm not trying to disturb your equinimity, and would be happy to leave it here. If, as a Buddhist, you cannot agree that all views except the Buddha's are false, even though they have been proved false by arguably the second most important person in Buddhism, then I don't see a way forward. The Buddha did not preach a postmodern universe.
But then again, I may have misunderstood you. Let's clear up this point first of all.
Is this on the basis that metaphysics is asking questions about the arrow instead of treating the wound? It is surely true that metaphysics, or more generally logic, is not the road to Heaven. But this is not to say that metaphysics is a waste of time, since it at least acts as a signpost, 'an antidote to dogmatic superstition' as Bradley puts it,.
I agree, that is well said. Questions about the arrow are endless, but not a waste of time.
Nagarjuna certainly didn't that it is a waste of time, and he logically proves the truth of the Buddha's metaphysical position. In other words, he proves that all views are false except his own. I can do this as well, and so could you if you wanted to, as long as your view is consistent with his. .
This is where we differ in view. Metaphysical positions are dropped in practice. The Buddha's ideas were skillfull means, provisional positions, antidotes, not absolute metaphysical positions. Some interpret them that way, but it is not my training, so be it.
I must stress that I did not call anyone's faith spurious. Faith is faith. I'm talking about what's true and what's false according to logic and experience. A person's metaphysical theories may well be spurious, and so also may be their interpretation of the scriptures in which they have their faith, and so may be their interpretation of their own experience in meditation. All we can do use our reason to distinguish fact from fantasy as the Upanishads advise. The Dalai Lama advises us to abandon anything that contradicts logic, and I like to know which is which..
I can't imagine what it's like not to care whether your own view is right or wrong..
Practice is training in letting go, practicing the Buddha Dharma. Views are view are views. When I hold them it is Dukkha and another birth, and being born yet again sucks.
If, as a Buddhist, you cannot agree that all views except the Buddha's are false, even though they have been proved false by arguably the second most important person in Buddhism, then I don't see a way forward. The Christianity/Buddhism debate would have to start here or never get started.
I see all views including the Buddha's as false, but the Buddha's views are tremendously helpful and valuable.
In a nutshell. All metaphysical question have been settled for me. Not by being met with an answer, but by being resolved cold at the source of their arising. It is over in that respect for this camper, can't speak for anyone else. So practice is the thing now, unbinding deeply ingrained habits of greed, hatred, and delusion one day at a time. It's a long road but there is comfort in knowing the feet are actually walking it.
You see all views including the Buddha's as false. This is why I cannot engage with you on the relationship between different religions. If they're all false then the issue of their consistency is uninteresting.
I wonder why you feel it necessary to see them as false, however, when all you are doing, it seems to me, is not being distracted by thoughts of their truth or falsity. Not being distracted is a good idea, I think, but if the Buddha's view is false then we might as well give in to distractions.
The thing is, your view is completely heretical in my view. Still, I now understand that you're not saying that Buddhism is true and Christianity false, as I first thought, but that they are both false. This is an interesting proposition coming from a Buddhist. It would mean we might as well toss a coin for which to believe. Is this really your view? I'm not sure I understand how you can hold it.
You see all views including the Buddha's as false. This is why I cannot engage with you on the relationship between different religions. If they're all false then the issue of their consistency is uninteresting..
Not false as opposed to true. False and true appear together. False in the sense of not having ultimate value. Not to be held onto.
I wonder why you feel it necessary to see them as false, however, when all you are doing, it seems to me, is not being distracted by thoughts of their truth or falsity. Not being distracted is a good idea, I think, but if the Buddha's view is false then we might as well give in to distractions. .
Thoughts are simple objects of awareness in practice. Their symbolic content is useful. The value of the Buddha's view is that it serves to end suffering. Those who are more mature in practice embody virtues that I value deeply, for sake of personal practice ,family life, and how to live in the world. The Buddha's view inspires and deepens aspiration.
Still, I now understand that you're not saying that Buddhism is true and Christianity false, as I first thought, but that they are both false. This is an interesting proposition coming from a Buddhist. It would mean we might as well toss a coin for which to believe. Is this really your view? I'm not sure I understand how you can hold it.
I came to the Buddhist approach through a long process that included exploring metaphysics, but the deciding factor was not whether it was truthful in a metaphysical sense, it was seeing that it was truthful in the sense of what I was really looking for, which was the end of suffering. It became clear that having an answer to a metaphysical question was not the real value in having it. The value was the (temporary) sense of completeness that having an answer brought. This insight lead to meditation which with time cut to the source of questions and answers. Then completeness was realized. It sounds fancy but it isn't a big deal, just a "kensho" that meditators commonly have with practice. This is the experience of many people I know.
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 June 2010
Florian, when you're struck by the arrow of suffering, there is little good in admiring the exquisite workmanship of the long, straight tapering shaft, the lightness and expertly-arranged flights and the precise sharpening and refinement of the head.
All you want to do is to get the damned thing out of your butt.
So while all this cogitation and reflection may have its uses, the best thing is to find the easiest and simplest way to remedy things. Then, there is time for a sit and a think.....
In my simple and uncluttered view......;)
Yes. That would be my view also, as I meant to make clear in my previous post. But I find I have time to think as well.
I don't know what else to add. I'm still reeling from the shock of discovering that one can be a committed Buddhist and yet believe that it doesn't matter whether the Buddha's teachings are true or false as long as they have a value.
The Abhidhamma pitaka is clear, Nibbana is a real phenomenon. It states this as a truth. Are we to say that it doesn't matter whether this is true or a lie?
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 June 2010
The way I see it is this.
Whose teachings they are, and whether they are by whome they purport to be, whether they need to be attributed to anyone or nay people, is ultimately, besides the point.
The question is - do they resonate?
Remember that the teachings of the Buddha were given originally by orla transmission.
So, if you want to look at it that way, were Christ's.
What we have to go by now, are recorded transcripts of their teachings which I am sure have been conveyed as accurately, honourably and straightforwardly as possible.
Laying aside all the extraneous embellishment and additional stuff, for a moment,
Christ's words, in the Bible, are pretty sound, pretty sane and pretty inspirational.
The dame goes for the Buddha's teachings.
Focus on that.
Everything that has been added on top of that, is - if you like - surplus to requirement.
Focus on the basics. Focus on what means a lot to you. Focus on what you know and see to be True.
Don't sit there picking it all to bits, trying to find the beginning of a string that goes back 3000 years.
Find this end and hold on to it.
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 June 2010
The way I see it is this.
Whose teachings they are, and whether they are by whom they purport to be, whether they need to be attributed to anyone or any people, is ultimately, besides the point.
The question is - do they resonate?
Remember that the teachings of the Buddha were given originally by oral transmission.
So, if you want to look at it that way, were Christ's.
What we have to go by now, are recorded transcripts of their teachings which I am sure have been conveyed as accurately, honourably and straightforwardly as possible.
Laying aside all the extraneous embellishment and additional stuff, for a moment,
Christ's words, in the Bible, are pretty sound, pretty sane and pretty inspirational.
The same goes for the Buddha's teachings.
Focus on that.
Everything that has been added on top of that, is - if you like - surplus to requirement.
Focus on the basics. Focus on what means a lot to you. Focus on what you know and see to be True.
Don't sit there picking it all to bits, trying to find the beginning of a string that goes back 3000 years.
Find this end and hold on to it.
As one who variously describes himself, when forced, as Christian and Buddhist (without, you will note, the indefinite article, verb. sap.), I have reflected on this subject ever since I first encountered Christian ecumenism back in the early 1960. It has been a topic of discussion with ordained and unordained Christians and Buddhists. Finally, I have come to a view.
As institutions, most of the Christianities and the Buddhisms appear very different and these differences cannot be swept under the prayer mat. Focusing on these leads inevitably to irreconcilability, without preventing dialogue and friendship.
If, however, you find useful and liberating elements within different spiritualities (for want of a better word) a problem arises. This came home to me most strongly reading Masao Abe and John Cobb's The Self-Emptying God in which various Christian and Jewish theologians comment on Abe's wonderful essay on the notions of kenosis and sunyatta - not made any easier because I found and read the book in McLeodGanj around a meeting with HHDL.
It strikes me that what I do (and I stress that this is a personal practice and I do not suggest that it is applicable for everyone) is 'use' the Gospel message, the Dharma, the Earth mysteries, the Sufi poets and so on as different tools, different lenses. Having been brought up as a rationalist and humanist with emphasis on scientific method, I quickly understood that you don't use a Bunsen burner to freeze water or a hammer to plane wood: a job needs an appropriate tool.
The old and tedious opposition between spirituality and science just dissolves when it is realised that they are different tools doing different jobs: astronomers see very few diatoms and microbiologists don't discover nebulae. The problem between religions is that they claim to explain "life, the universe and everything" and that each one claims exclusivity.
Although he doesn't quote the precise sutra reference, Thich Nhat Hanh, in his chapter on Right View in The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, says:
"The Buddha said that Right View is to have faith and confidence that there are people who have been able to transform their suffering."
I read this, many years ago, and it seemed to me that we could find and learn from such people in many places and across the ages.
After all, as has been said many times, the Buddha's teachings are a raft, not the shore and Jesus described himself as the way, the road not the terminus, the gate not the garden.
Comments
Quite the contrary. I have studied the words of Buddha, I have studied sects of Buddhism, and I have studied Buddhists. I find all three resonate quite differently. I agree that Buddha had a clear understanding of phenomena, and taught in a subjective manner that was genius. I find buddhist teachers and writers to hold deep and resounding wisdom.
To assert that Buddhism is the alpha of all religions is simply too much, in my opinion, because no matter how clear the Buddha was, he was still only pointing to natural phenomena, which ascribing to buddhism seems like a silly and slippery grasping.
For instance, can you really assert that Jesus found what he did through the study of buddhism, rather than observing the universe?
It's a possibility, wouldn't you say.....?
Just because one system, explanation or method is older than another is far from being proof of its truth. If that were the case, we would still be building ziggurats or worshipping the Ennead.
Certainly, Buddhist 'missionaries' were present in Alexandria at the turn of the Era, but in the light of the fact that the Greeks were developing their innovative system of philosophy and Hebrew prophets like Jeremiah were proposing new visions of God at about the same time as Buddhism and Jainism arose suggests that something fundamental in the human psyche was going on around 500 BCE.
That one person finds a useful description of the universe they inhabit from one system rather than another is, to the modern mind, a matter of personal choice. We can 'promote' our own favourite but it takes a certain arrogance to assert that this or that is the only view - as the varieties of Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or olympic sports testify.
given the speed with which information whizzes round the planet today, compared to the way it did 3000 years qgo, everything 'then', is hypothesis.
Really....:)
Indeed, as an historian and amateur archaeologist, I agree that the past is a different country. This means that, if we accept that we are simply spinning stories based on limited evidence, that we must apply precisely the same criteria to the reported words and actions of the Historical Buddha. We cannot assert that we have some sort of 'inerrancy' which we deny to others without turning to some sort of fundamentalism.
You say, dearest sister Fede, that you tried to reconcile a Christianity with your Buddhism for 10 years and then gave up. Please accept that some of us (surely I am not alone? No, I know others like me) who have found the common ground and we are aware that others are on the same path. That the Jesus and Buddha messages do not illuminate each other on your path does not mean that they are not lamps to others.
Neo-paganism and Tibetan Buddhism, with its roots in Bon, have found common ground as, for example, when the lamas sent to take the tulku born in Aotearoa (New Zealand) made offerings to the local, Maori deities. I have referred elsewhere to Celtic Buddhism, which is a small, new lineage.
Next Aramadanda asked: "Why is it that recluses fight with recluses?" And Maha Kaccana replies: "It is because of lust for views, attachment, greed, and obsession with views, that recluses fight with recluses."
(AN 2:4:6)
I do not make assertions that it was or that it wasn't, only saying that making a solid interpretation of origins is slippery and disquieting, very much for the same reasons you offer.
I remember a vehement Christian who insisted that the Buddha learned from Jesus. Its ridiculous, yes, as historic timelines do not match, but it shows how some people cling to their idols despite it being contrary to wisdom.
With warmth,
Matt
Pretty awful stuff. I have been thinking very critically about Buddhism the past few days...my conclusion is that the question asking whether, Buddha and Jesus work together, may be like asking if excrement and vomit work well together. Buddhism is at least 50% Bull poop just like any other religion, but the remaining 50% that is valuable and good for humanity may be better than, and in fact irreconcilable with, Christianity.
Orthodox Christianity is all the typical sects that believe in one God, Jesus as the one and true Savior, and the Bible is the true and inerrant word of God.
Orthodox could refer to any sect that is not mystical or Gnostic basically.
Thank you for the clarification, Trans. I have been misunderstanding you. Over here, the denomination styled "Orthodox Christianity" refers to Christians of the Greek, Russian and Serbian traditions, dating back as a separate entity, like the Roman tradition to the Great Schism in the Eleventh century. It has, of course, a rich mystical tradition and no belief in "inerrancy", not being post-Luther, so you will perhaps forgive my confusion.
As I understand it, you are referring to what are termed (over her at least) Evangelical churches, some of which are deemed 'fundamentalist'. Am I right? If that is so, I would agree that their form of theology would be very hard to reconcile with Buddhism. Fortunately, Christianity being an offshoot of Judaism it has the notion of the "remnant", and there remain a substantial remnant of us who take a different view of the Jesus message and its effect on action, mindset and practice.
Buddhism came after Hinduism.
I think he was less "theistic" than people think. He stated that we are all Gods in John 10:34, which contradicts the conventional idea of monotheism.
Your abuse of the word obsession can used to describe the very act of you responding to me in this forum.
Oh, ok. Sorry for the confusion. I should have clarified the terms.
Huh?
He also said, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27). Must have been in a bad mood that day.
It was part of a parable:
11As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12He said therefore, "A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, 'Engage in business until I come.' 14But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.' 15When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16The first came before him, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.' 17And he said to him, 'Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.' 18And the second came, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made five minas.' 19And he said to him, 'And you are to be over five cities.' 20Then another came, saying, 'Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; 21for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.' 22He said to him, 'I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?' 24And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.' 25And they said to him, 'Lord, he has ten minas!' 26'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'"
From what I understand, Hinduism is a relatively modern term that's used to describe a diverse collection of Indian spiritual traditions, many of which arose after the Buddha's lifetime.
The Buddha was one of the great wandering ascetics (Pali: samana, Skt: shramana) who taught in the later Vedic Period, and whose teachings were considered heterodox because they rejected the authority of the Vedas. The most prominent "orthodox" tradition in northern India at that time was Brahmanism, which, of course, relied heavily on the Vedas for their religious authority, and included some of the early Upanishads as well.
While many people think of the the Buddha as a reformer of Brahmanism, I think it's more correct to say that he replaced it with his own unique philosophy, often redefining many of the key philosophical terms and concepts of his contemporaries, giving them his own meaning and context. This is clearly documented with a variety of words such as brahmin, kamma, khandha, nibbana, etc.
The Buddha was also an expert at word play, especially puns (which don't always translate well into English), and many of these were in reference to passages from the Vedas and Upanishads. Much of this was apparently lost on later Buddhist commentators, but has since been rediscovered by modern scholarship and textual analysis.
Thank you for posting the whole parable. As with all stories with a moral, it is the whole story that we must consider and Jesus is very clear about the king here: he is a tyrant who fears neither man nor God. What is more, he is a foreign nobleman who takes over a kingdom. The contemporary listener/reader would immediately think of Herod the Great and the Roman rulers who imposed a non-Judaean rule and were notorious for cruelty.
The servants who made money were collaborators, willing or unwilling. The one who didn't was the only one who followed the divine injunction to oppose the tyrant. Within the written Gospel context, we cannot ignore Luke's version of Hannah's Song, which is now called the Magnificat:
"He has put down the mighty from their seats."
The story is, in fact, a warning: oppose the powerful, as we are told to do, and it will go hard with you. Others may profit, here and now, from the king's favour but, as the Psalmist has it: "Put not your trust in princes" (Ps. 146)
The nobleman/king in this story is not the Father-God of whom Jesus spoke but an example of the corrupt human kingship against which Samuel warned. Jesus' opposition to human kingship is evident all through the Gospels and he declares that his kingdom is unlike any earthly one, i.e. it is God's "holy mountain".
Once again, this time in the form of a story, Jesus is warning that following the path of righteousness (and I think we may also say the Noble Eightfold Path) will bring us into conflict with the rich and powerful, with painful results - as our brothers and sisters in Tibet are demonstrating once again.
I hate to seem overly pedantic and argumentative, Transmetaphysical, but I think you're only partially right. As I already mentioned, the Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas, which included the early Upanishads, so I think it's fair to say that Brahmanism and some of the early forms of Vedanta pre-dated the Buddha.
The point I was trying to make, however, is that "Hinduism" is a relatively modern term that's used to describe a diverse collection of Indian spiritual traditions, many of which arose after the Buddha's lifetime. This would include later developments in Vedanta (especially Advaita Vedanta), which was built around the growing collection of the more mystical Upanishads rather than the ritualistic Vedas, as well as a great deal of what we consider Hinduism today.
Much of the Mahabharata, including the Bhagavad Gita, for example, was most likely composed after the Buddha's lifetime, as was the Ramayana and the majority of the Puranas. So, in my opinion, I think it's rather misleading to say that Buddhism came after Hinduism.
Not pedantic, Jason. A useful clarification. Thank you.
However it seems that many of the practices are complementary. Thomas Merton is an example of a Catholic monk who gained a great deal from Buddhist teachings and was working hard on interfaith reconciliation at his death. He was even attending a conference on Buddhism when he died. Thich Nhat Hanh has also written a book about the complementarity of the teachings of Buddha and Jesus, 'Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers'.
You're right, my dear friend; context is indeed important, and I while I was just trying to be cheeky, I did take that passage out of context. Truth be told, I'm not very familiar with the Bible, and I must admit that the literary style of the New Testament often confuses me.
Rereading this parable, I can see what you're saying, but I can also see how it can be interpreted as having a duel meaning. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, for example, include this note in their 1871 Commentary On the Whole Bible:
This only makes sense to me, however, in the context of more "orthodox" or "evangelical" Christian theology, and Jesus is alluding to himself as the "King of kings" in Revelations 19:16, but I'm not a very big fan of Revelations myself. In fact, I've been meaning to get a hold of a copy of Jefferson's Bible, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, because I think I might actually like.
I don't agree. When I hear that parable and the words around it, I hear him as saying that anyone who opposes the Christ will be ultimately destroyed... not as himself, but closer to saying "Those that fight against the dhamma will be destroyed"... where in the present moment, he was the representation of the force of nature that the Jews called God.
I remember having to reflect deeply on the ideas of murder against ideas (in a few of Chogam Trungpa's books), even needing more reflection from my teacher... finally seeing that it was not speaking of the aggressions, but speaking of the force of energy. I can only imagine how little substance a prince would have in his arguments with a Buddha.
Another problem with the word "Hindu" is that it has become associated with Hindu ultra-nationalism, and the rather dubious claims the ultra-nationalists make for early Indian religion and society. Historians usually use "late vedic religion" to refer to the religious environment at the Buddha's time, or use the term "Brahmanism" to refer to a specific set of myths and rituals. But even there, the Brahmanism of the Buddha's time was not modern Brahmanism.
And finally, the term "Hindu" was introduced in India in the twelfth century by Muslim invaders, and it originally meant "not Muslim". Obviously, neither the term nor the concept existed in the Buddha's time.
All in all, it's probably better not to call someone Hindu unless they identify themselves as Hindu, or to call a religion Hindu unless the people who practice it identify it as Hindu. While there's clear continuity between modern and early Indian religion, I wouldn't use the term "Hindu" for anything prior to the Muslim invasions.
The parables tend to reflect everyday life in Palestine in Jesus' day. When Luke was writing, rule over Israel had been insecure for over two hundred years, and insecure rulers tend to be brutal. The parable reflects both the insecurity and the brutality.
Luke's Christianity was the one that eventually became "orthodox". So I think a more "orthodox" theology is the proper context.
You are trying to read the parable both in and out of context. I do suggest that you re-read the text: Jesus specifically says that the 'king' is abusive and unjust, whereas he also emphasises elsewhere (passim) the just and loving nature of the Father-God he is teaching about.
Just what sort of God do you think he is teaching? If, indeed, the interpretation you seem to prefer is correct (which I assure you it is not), then JC is calling on us to be morally superior to this same God.
The passages about destruction were clearly written back into the story after the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, who were exemplars of injustice and the use of quislings and collaborators.
I really believe that you are ignoring the context. One of Luke's themes is the idea that Jesus will return as a messiah/king, and he explicitly states that Jesus told this parable because some people thought the kingdom of God was about to appear. The parable is obviously about a ruler who is going to be away for a while, and how he will judge people when he returns.
An important part of the literary style of the parables is exaggeration and shock. These were stories that were deliberately told in a way that would get people's attention and ensure that the stories were remembered. You seem to be trying to interpret this parable in a way that removes this aspect of the style.
Who is teaching, Jesus or Luke? I have no idea what sort of God Jesus was teaching. The historical fictions we call the Gospels don't provide us with reliable evidence. The sort of god that Luke was teaching was obviously the sort of God that modern "orthodox" Christianity teaches, which is to say a god who harshly punishes those who don't follow his teachings.
You'll have to explain where in the parable or the context you find this.
The consensus among scholars is that Luke was written after the destruction of the temple, and the general scholarly understanding of Luke is based on that.
The material in the Gospels that is most likely to have come from Jesus is the stuff from Q. But even that shows signs of having been expanded on after Jesus' death. The next most reliable material may be the parables. Their counter-intuitive style strongly suggests that they share a common inspiration, if not a common author. But we still have no way of knowing whether a particular parable came from Jesus. Luke and Matthew were obviously borrowing from the same collection of parables, or at least similar collections of parables. But since we don't have that collection of parables, it's difficult to estimate how reliable it is as a source of Jesus' teachings.
As for the parable in question, if you compare it with the version in Matthew, it's obvious that Luke added in the bits about the ruler. And that reinforces the point I've been making about what Luke was trying to say.
Your version of Jesus is an attractive one, but it's not Luke, and Luke is what we're discussing.
Well, this was part of a parable. This one is always taken out of context.
Oh, sorry. I see now that this was covered pretty extensively!
Both schools are on attainment, and not about reconciliation.
According to Buddhism, Buddha was born as Prince named Siddhartha. He became awakened to the absolute truth of all phenomena (the Dharma), and then identified his dharma name as Buddha Shakyamuni, referring to living beings nature namely Buddha as enlightenment; Shakya as benevolence, and "Muni" as prajna and/or samadhi - The unity of entity and its functions. When Buddha says God is irrelevant, He is referring to the 28 Realm of the Gods (Devaloka):
In the Desire Realm, there are:
1) Heavens of the Four Deva-kings,
2) Trayastrimsa,
3) Yama Deva (Dwelling of Yama),
4) Tusita,
5) Nirmanarati,
6) Paranirmitavasavartin (Dwelling of Mara).
In the Form Realm, there are:
(a) The First Meditative Heavens which consist of:
7) Brahmakayika [assembly of Brahmadevas],
8) Brahmapurohita [retinue of Brahma],
9) Mahabrahman [Brahman himself]);
(b) The Second Meditative Heavens which consist of:
10) Parittab- has [Minor Light],
11) Apramanabha [Infinite Light],
12) Abhasvara [Light and Sound]);
(c) The Third Meditative Heavens which consist of:
13) Parittasubha [Minor Purity],
14) Apramanasubha [Boundless Purity],
15) Subhakrtsna [Universal Purity]);
(d) The Fourth Meditative Heavens which consist of:
16) Punyaprasva [Born to Happiness],
17) Happiness in Love,
18) Brhatphala [Fruitful],
19) Asanjnisattva [No Thought],
20) Avhra [No Vexation],
21) Atapas [No Heat],
22) Sudrsa [Beautiful],
23) Sudarsana [Beautiful Appearance]
24) Akanisthas [End of Form].
In the Formless Realm, there are:
25) Akasanantyayatana (Abode of Infinite Space),
26) Vijnananantyayatana (Limitlessness of Consciousness),
27) Akincanyayatana (Non-Existing),
28) Naivasamjnanasamjnanayatana (Neither Thinking nor Non-thinking).
As a result of this discussion, I re-examined my reading and wrote something about it:
http://www.freewebs.com/simonthepilgrim/parableofthetalents.htm
Hi Transmetaphysical
As a Christian I would agree wholeheartedly with your statement.
I hope budhists and christians can have mutual respect and understanding of each other however. They are indeed very different outlooks on the world, and the nature of self.
Whether these contradictory interpretations are errant, as I believe they are, is a question that is difficult to sort out, but I don't think either side in the discussion can ever finally win out, since there will always be about as many interpreations as there are people. Still, the work of Armstrong, Pagels, Freke, Gandy etc. may be swaying opinion in the direction of a reconciliation.
It seems unfortuante that the Roman Church opted out of the original collegiate and decided to start laying down the law as suited themselves. It means that even within the Christian church we have two distinct versions of Christianity, one very much at odds with Buddhism and one more or less consistent with it.
My personal view, for what it's worth, is that both Jesus and Buddha knew the truth.
One said:
‘What shall I do to be answered?’
El Shah answered:
‘You shall avoid those who imagine themselves to be the People of Salvation. They think that they are saved, or that they have the means to save. In reality, they are all but lost.
‘These are the people, like today’s Magians, Jews and Christians, who recite dramatic tales, threaten and cajole many times in succession with the same admonitions, They cry out that you must become committed to their creed.
‘The result of this is an imitation, a sentimentalist. Anyone can be "given" this spurious type of belief, and can be made to feel that it is real faith.
‘But this is not the original Way of Zoroaster, of Moses, of Jesus. It is the method discovered by desperate men for the inclusion in their ranks of large numbers."
In Idries Shah, ‘Caravan of Dreams’,
What does reconciling mean when it means that people must abandon there honest views, and adopt another that may go against their deepest principles? That is what it would mean for the Christians I know if reconciliation meant adopting the interpretations you hold to be uniquely privileged.
The AQAL Model of integration is pretty good in that it allows the truth claims of different religions and different modes of different religions to remain intact on their own terms. This is IMO more skillful than asserting a unity that selectively discredits one persons religious beliefs and affirms another because it accords with yet another "one truth" belief system.
"Integralism" regardless of its flaws as a pop movement, seems to have legs.
You ask whether it is intolerant, rigid and so forth to say that deeply sincere Christians have a spurious understanding if their faith does not see the common root held to be true in my understanding? I presume you think it is.
I'd say a person can claim that some other person's understanding is spurious however deeply and sincerely the other person holds it without a trace of intolerance. After all, the Buddha did it all the time. Does he not ask us to to abandon all views except his? At any rate, the question shows that I've not expained myself well.
I'll assume you would agree that either Christian and Buddhist doctrine is/are consistent or not. I can see no other alternative. It is not intolerant, therefore, to claim that there are good reasons to suppose that they are consistent. They might be, unless and until someone shows that they are not. If you can do that then we can immediately stop disagreeing.
And would it not be intolerant and rigid to suppose that these religions are not consistent just because you can't find an interpretation of Christianity that fits your interpretation of Buddhism? I can do this, so our disagreement is only about how you and me should interpret these doctrines. One of us is wrong, and all we need do is establish which it is. All this has got nothing to do with intolerance or rigidity. After all, since so many Buddhists and Christians share my view I can be sure there is nothing intolerant in holding it.
My view would be, in light of a widespread agreement among practitioners that these two religions share the same origin, that it is up to objectors to find some counter-evidence. Without that there's nothing here to get our teeth into. I could make an argument, and have presented one at some length in a dissertion elsewhere, but really it would be easier to deal with specific objections than try to prove the unprovable. If you have an objection, an instance where the two religions are inconsistent, then let's focus on that and see where it takes us.
Still, it is odd that we don't agree. Do you not hear bells ringing when in the Gnostic Gospels Jesus is given the words, 'Sin, as such, does not exist'? Or that Mohammed advises, 'An hour's contemplation is worth a year's worship'? This is the Christianity and Islam that I'm suggesting is consistent with Buddhist doctrine, just in case there's any doubt.
Your paragraph about the AQAL model, whatever that is, is a suprise. I thought it was you who were claiming that only Buddhism is true. I'm suggesting that they're all true, which means that your objection is well off target. I have to work quite hard to think of a religion I'd want to discredit. I did try it once with three Jehova's Witnesses who came round for tea, not a bright idea, but I had no thought of discrediting the Bible.
The view of a common root is a view among views, held just the same as those you consider spurious. It can contract into a hard intolerant position just the same as other views, my own included.
fair enough He asks those who wish to realize the end of suffering as he prescribes to do so, it is not a compulsion for everyone, or a final metaphysical claim. The Buddhas views are skillful means, a raft. They are in the end let go of.
It is consistent for some inconsistent for others, as they declare it. My view is that it can be interpreted as both consistent and inconsistent. I would prefer consistency because it is a nice idea, but defer to others to interpret it their way.
It would be
Thats great, that you can.
One of us is wrong? OK I'll be wrong.
Living with and being a part of the Buddhist community in both the Theravada and Mahayana traditions for over twenty years. I can say first hand this claim is simply not true. Some share your view, some don't, and most do not have have a strong opinion. If you have proven a single source to your satisfaction, and feel this is very important, thats great, but your claim about the views of Buddhist practitioners is just silly and ill informed, no offense. We don't have a "widespread agreement". It's not for me to prove anything. I accept your honest views 100% as your honest views.
I like the idea of all religions having a single source. It's a great idea.
AQAL is kind of like what you are talking about but better suited for reconciliation as it does not call anyones faith spurious. This guy is pretty good as well.....
http://www.kheper.net/index.htm
.. for the record I've always loved this kind of fun metaphysics, it is just that such conceptual enthusiasms are dropped in serious practice.
The fact that you keep saying that I claim only Buddhism is true is the red flag here. Why?.
I must stress that I did not call anyone's faith spurious. Faith is faith. I'm talking about what's true and what's false according to logic and experience. A person's metaphysical theories may well be spurious, and so also may be their interpretation of the scriptures in which they have their faith, and so may be their interpretation of their own experience in meditation. As the Upanishads advise, we must use our reason to distinguish fact from fantasy. The Dalai Lama advises us to abandon anything that contradicts logic, and I like to know which is which. I can't imagine what it's like not to care whether your own view is right or wrong
I'm not trying to disturb your equinimity, and would be happy to leave it here. If, as a Buddhist, you cannot agree that all views except the Buddha's are false, even though they have been proved false by arguably the second most important person in Buddhism, then I don't see a way forward. The Buddha did not preach a postmodern universe.
But then again, I may have misunderstood you. Let's clear up this point first of all.
There is "Truth" and "truths" which is fine in-and-of-itself.
I agree, that is well said. Questions about the arrow are endless, but not a waste of time.
This is where we differ in view. Metaphysical positions are dropped in practice. The Buddha's ideas were skillfull means, provisional positions, antidotes, not absolute metaphysical positions. Some interpret them that way, but it is not my training, so be it.
Yes I agree, as far as it goes.
Practice is training in letting go, practicing the Buddha Dharma. Views are view are views. When I hold them it is Dukkha and another birth, and being born yet again sucks.
It's OK. When I'm awake there is no equanimity to disturb.:)
I see all views including the Buddha's as false, but the Buddha's views are tremendously helpful and valuable.
In a nutshell. All metaphysical question have been settled for me. Not by being met with an answer, but by being resolved cold at the source of their arising. It is over in that respect for this camper, can't speak for anyone else. So practice is the thing now, unbinding deeply ingrained habits of greed, hatred, and delusion one day at a time. It's a long road but there is comfort in knowing the feet are actually walking it.
You see all views including the Buddha's as false. This is why I cannot engage with you on the relationship between different religions. If they're all false then the issue of their consistency is uninteresting.
I wonder why you feel it necessary to see them as false, however, when all you are doing, it seems to me, is not being distracted by thoughts of their truth or falsity. Not being distracted is a good idea, I think, but if the Buddha's view is false then we might as well give in to distractions.
The thing is, your view is completely heretical in my view. Still, I now understand that you're not saying that Buddhism is true and Christianity false, as I first thought, but that they are both false. This is an interesting proposition coming from a Buddhist. It would mean we might as well toss a coin for which to believe. Is this really your view? I'm not sure I understand how you can hold it.
Thoughts are simple objects of awareness in practice. Their symbolic content is useful. The value of the Buddha's view is that it serves to end suffering. Those who are more mature in practice embody virtues that I value deeply, for sake of personal practice ,family life, and how to live in the world. The Buddha's view inspires and deepens aspiration.
Thats OK.
I came to the Buddhist approach through a long process that included exploring metaphysics, but the deciding factor was not whether it was truthful in a metaphysical sense, it was seeing that it was truthful in the sense of what I was really looking for, which was the end of suffering. It became clear that having an answer to a metaphysical question was not the real value in having it. The value was the (temporary) sense of completeness that having an answer brought. This insight lead to meditation which with time cut to the source of questions and answers. Then completeness was realized. It sounds fancy but it isn't a big deal, just a "kensho" that meditators commonly have with practice. This is the experience of many people I know.
All you want to do is to get the damned thing out of your butt.
So while all this cogitation and reflection may have its uses, the best thing is to find the easiest and simplest way to remedy things. Then, there is time for a sit and a think.....
In my simple and uncluttered view......;)
I don't know what else to add. I'm still reeling from the shock of discovering that one can be a committed Buddhist and yet believe that it doesn't matter whether the Buddha's teachings are true or false as long as they have a value.
The Abhidhamma pitaka is clear, Nibbana is a real phenomenon. It states this as a truth. Are we to say that it doesn't matter whether this is true or a lie?
Whose teachings they are, and whether they are by whome they purport to be, whether they need to be attributed to anyone or nay people, is ultimately, besides the point.
The question is - do they resonate?
Remember that the teachings of the Buddha were given originally by orla transmission.
So, if you want to look at it that way, were Christ's.
What we have to go by now, are recorded transcripts of their teachings which I am sure have been conveyed as accurately, honourably and straightforwardly as possible.
Laying aside all the extraneous embellishment and additional stuff, for a moment,
Christ's words, in the Bible, are pretty sound, pretty sane and pretty inspirational.
The dame goes for the Buddha's teachings.
Focus on that.
Everything that has been added on top of that, is - if you like - surplus to requirement.
Focus on the basics. Focus on what means a lot to you. Focus on what you know and see to be True.
Don't sit there picking it all to bits, trying to find the beginning of a string that goes back 3000 years.
Find this end and hold on to it.
Whose teachings they are, and whether they are by whom they purport to be, whether they need to be attributed to anyone or any people, is ultimately, besides the point.
The question is - do they resonate?
Remember that the teachings of the Buddha were given originally by oral transmission.
So, if you want to look at it that way, were Christ's.
What we have to go by now, are recorded transcripts of their teachings which I am sure have been conveyed as accurately, honourably and straightforwardly as possible.
Laying aside all the extraneous embellishment and additional stuff, for a moment,
Christ's words, in the Bible, are pretty sound, pretty sane and pretty inspirational.
The same goes for the Buddha's teachings.
Focus on that.
Everything that has been added on top of that, is - if you like - surplus to requirement.
Focus on the basics. Focus on what means a lot to you. Focus on what you know and see to be True.
Don't sit there picking it all to bits, trying to find the beginning of a string that goes back 3000 years.
Find this end and hold on to it.
As institutions, most of the Christianities and the Buddhisms appear very different and these differences cannot be swept under the prayer mat. Focusing on these leads inevitably to irreconcilability, without preventing dialogue and friendship.
If, however, you find useful and liberating elements within different spiritualities (for want of a better word) a problem arises. This came home to me most strongly reading Masao Abe and John Cobb's The Self-Emptying God in which various Christian and Jewish theologians comment on Abe's wonderful essay on the notions of kenosis and sunyatta - not made any easier because I found and read the book in McLeodGanj around a meeting with HHDL.
It strikes me that what I do (and I stress that this is a personal practice and I do not suggest that it is applicable for everyone) is 'use' the Gospel message, the Dharma, the Earth mysteries, the Sufi poets and so on as different tools, different lenses. Having been brought up as a rationalist and humanist with emphasis on scientific method, I quickly understood that you don't use a Bunsen burner to freeze water or a hammer to plane wood: a job needs an appropriate tool.
The old and tedious opposition between spirituality and science just dissolves when it is realised that they are different tools doing different jobs: astronomers see very few diatoms and microbiologists don't discover nebulae. The problem between religions is that they claim to explain "life, the universe and everything" and that each one claims exclusivity.
Although he doesn't quote the precise sutra reference, Thich Nhat Hanh, in his chapter on Right View in The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, says:
"The Buddha said that Right View is to have faith and confidence that there are people who have been able to transform their suffering."
I read this, many years ago, and it seemed to me that we could find and learn from such people in many places and across the ages.
After all, as has been said many times, the Buddha's teachings are a raft, not the shore and Jesus described himself as the way, the road not the terminus, the gate not the garden.
But all that is just my own take.