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.
According to Buddhism scripture, loving kindness is the truth of freedom and democracy beyond time and space in all living beings. In Buddha teaching, all living beings who learn Buddhism truth to reconcile the mind until supreme loving kindness prevailed. In Bible, all mankind who believe in God will go to heaven, enjoying heavenly beings life with God. In both regards, they are happy ending episode. The only concern is the degree of mindfulness and heart revealed in both teachings :cool:
The first person with any claim to authority that I spoke to at length about the logic of Buddhism was George Spencer Brown. His best known book is Laws of Form, in which he explains how form arises in emptiness. He declares himself to be a buddha.
Can you cite a reference for this? I'm not able to find a source that links Spencer-Brown to Buddhism, or to the claim to be a buddha. As you indicate in the list of people you say he is associated with, he seems to be associated with other Indian religions, but not Buddhism.
What Brown does in Laws of Form is to translate Nagarjuna's theory of emptiness into a simple mathematical calculus.
Again, can you cite a source? Stathis claims that his extensions to the Laws of Form are compatible with Nagarjuna's logic, but I can't find any reference to a similar claim from Spencer-Brown for the Laws of Form.
The reason it is possible to be sure that Nagarjuna did not prove that all views are absurd is that it is not possible to do it. This is why I can be so confident that he did not do this.
Your ideas seem to be identical to Peter Jones' ideas, the language you use is similar to his, and in some cases you have blocks of text in your previous posts that seem very similar to blocks of text in his published papers. For example:
As you'll know, N's proof depends on 'abduction,' the elimination of false views to reveal the true or 'best' one, as recommended by Sherlock Holmes for solving cases. Eliminate all the suspects who couldn't have done it and whoever is left over is the perpetrator.
The proofs of Bradley and Nagarjuna are made by abduction, the method recommended by Sherlock Holmes for solving cases involving multiple suspects and only circumstantial evidence. One by one the suspects are eliminated from the enquiry and when there is only one left, as there eventually is for Bradley and Nagarjuna's investigation, then the case is solved.
It would be helpful if you would indicate whose ideas you are reproducing and give citations or links to their publications so that we can get a better idea of the claims that you, or Jones or whoever, are making. In case of Jones, you seem to be reproducing his talking points, rather than giving us his actual analysis.
Regarding the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism, it is surely our choice whether or not they are compatible.
If we view Christianity as a set of texts, then I agree with this. The four Gospels give us four possible Jesuses, and when we analyze them to try to pick out their sources, we get even more Jesuses. And when we try to reconcile the Gospels, which requires reading them in a non-literal way, we end up with an infinity of Jesuses due to the fact that everyone carries out the reconciliation in a different way. Leif Vaage uses the reconstructed Q text to make a very good argument that Jesus was the Jewish version of a Greek Cynic philosopher, so I can easily see how the right set of filters will get you a Buddhist Jesus.
The problem is that a religion is not a set of texts. A religion is a set of myths and rituals, and these are drawn, not from texts, but from specific interpretations of texts. For example, the Christian myths drawn from the Old Testament are rather distinct from the Jewish myths drawn from the same source. In regard to Buddhism, the vast majority of Christians interpret the Bible in ways that are not compatible with Buddhism. Christianity is compatible with Buddhism only if we make the dubious assumption that Christianity is something other than what Christians believe in.
An example is the central role played by Jesus in salvation from sin. For most Christians, this is what makes Christianity Christianity. It's also incompatible with most other religions. To make Christianity compatible with Buddhism, you would either have to downplay the role of Jesus to the point of making the religion unrecognizable to most Christians, or modify Buddhism in ways that would make it unrecognizable to most Buddhists.
I have no problem with people modifying existing religions to suite their own purposes. But in doing that, you're not reconciling Buddhism and Christianity. You're just adding one more set of beliefs to an already crowded religious marketplace.
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
Yes, I will add here that if we are going to quote, cite or refer to authors, writers or teachers and their works, we must give reference and links in order to underpin our statements.
It is a given in such topics of discussion that a mere "he said, she said" approach is completely insufficient and totally questionable, and must be backed up by reliable and legitimate reference, which others may scrutinise.
Yes, I will add here that if we are going to quote, cite or refer to authors, writers or teachers and their works, we must give reference and links in order to underpin our statements.
It is a given in such topics of discussion that a mere "he said, she said" approach is completely insufficient and totally questionable, and must be backed up by reliable and legitimate reference, which others may scrutinise.
Thanks to all.
What about expressing an insight or experience from practice? There is no backing it. Backing it with a refrence only proves its inauthenticity. You just express it the best you can. It either rings true, or it doesn't. It is a different thing altogether.
What about expressing an insight or experience from practice? There is no backing it. Backing it with a refrence only proves its inauthenticity. You just express it the best you can. It either rings true, or it doesn't. It is a different thing altogether.
Just thinking out loud.
This seems to me to be a very important point, Richard. The confusion between external authority and personal experience/anecdote leads to discomfort on all sides.
In some Buddhist writings, like Longchenpa's The Jewel Ship amongst others, the teaching is framed as a personal encounter but is now quotable as 'authority'. Much the same could be said of the works of the Christian mystics, even of parts of St Paul.
Distinguishing the authentic account of Truth/Dharma from the personal and contingent is, I suggest, part of the work that we must do. It is discernment, not to separate true from false but to transform the personal by application of the True.
If, as so many have suggested, it is found that the authentic accounts correspond in objective as well as subjective ways, then all is 'reconcilable'. The difficulty seems to arise from the belief (buttressed with 'authority') that there is a single right view, a sort of extra ecclesia nulla salus mindset which transcends the Cathloic Church and has infected a great deal of contemporary thought, particularly in religion and nationalism. Of course, those of us who continue to hold a more eclectic view have our own 'authorities' to back us up.
I would add that 'reconciliation' between Buddhism and Christianity, whilst it implies that there has been some sort of rift, could never mean that we see HHDL concelebrating Mass (although, now I come to think of it.....). When two are reconciled, one does not become the other. A new thing, a synergy, can be born.
Distinguishing the authentic account of Truth/Dharma from the personal and contingent is, I suggest, part of the work that we must do. It is discernment, not to separate true from false but to transform the personal by application of the True.
Yes Thank you, I make the assumption that if you are speaking from practice, it is within the context of Sangha, and of having internalized the teachings. Without that grounding, it is easy to get carried away.
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
What about expressing an insight or experience from practice? There is no backing it. Backing it with a refrence only proves its inauthenticity. You just express it the best you can. It either rings true, or it doesn't. It is a different thing altogether.
Just thinking out loud.
I couldn't agree more Richard you're quite right....
You could say "I have found that"... or "in my experience", or even "This happens to resonate with me"....
if truly something is not quotable and verifiable, then expect to be contradicted or at least have the point debated.
And that's ok. Surely, that's the point.
My direction is that if people are going to say "so-and-so clearly states that...." or they are going to citr authors whom for them are stating an unambiguous factual truth - then they should be able as far as possible to back that up.
It's all very well holding up a piece or authoritative literature as a point underpinning your view, but some kind of "evidence" is required.
The issue of the compatibility of Buddhism and Christianity reminds me of the Great Barbecue Controversy of North Carolina. The worship if Barbecue in North Carolina is centered on two cults, one found primarily in the west part of the state and which uses tomato paste or tomato sauce in its Barbecue sauce, and the other found primarily in the eastern part of the state, for whom the addition of tomato products to Barbecue sauce is anathema. There are syncretist reformers who say "Come, let us season together," but for the small number of hard core believers self-identity is based on exclusion of the other; for the Eastern Orthodox Barbecueist rapprochement with the Western Evangelical Barbecueist would render existence meaningless, and visa versa.
However, the vast majority of devout worshipers at the Grill of Barbecue are more enthusiastic than orthodox. They ask not that that their pork be slathered with the One True Sauce, but only that it be supplied in sufficient quantity.
Personally, I am a vegetarian Shakespearianist. Mindful of the evils of religious emotionalism, I follow the teachings of Master William, who wrote
Let me not to the spare-ribs of true kinds
Admit a condiment.
--Sonnet 116, "Against Barbecue"
The first person with any claim to authority that I spoke to at length about the logic of Buddhism was George Spencer Brown. His best known book is Laws of Form, in which he explains how form arises in emptiness. He declares himself to be a buddha.
"Can you cite a reference for this? I'm not able to find a source that links Spencer-Brown to Buddhism, or to the claim to be a buddha. As you indicate in the list of people you say he is associated with, he seems to be associated with other Indian religions, but not Buddhism."
Sorry but I doubt there is such a reference. For Brown, in the final analysis, Buddhism and Taoism would be interchangeble with advaita Vedanta. His use of certain Chinese refrences in his book is a giveaway. Also his friendship and concordance with Wei Wu Wei would indicate his advaitan/Taoist/Buddhist views. The most obvious link would be that he claims exactly what Nagarjuna claims, that all distinctions are not fundamental. I suspect that his book of poetry 'It Takes Two to Play' (I think it is called) may make his views more clear, but I cannot find a copy. He says of his poetry that it is strictly rigorous.
Florian;115399 said:
What Brown does in Laws of Form is to translate Nagarjuna's theory of emptiness into a simple mathematical calculus.
"Again, can you cite a source? Stathis claims that his extensions to the Laws of Form are compatible with Nagarjuna's logic, but I can't find any reference to a similar claim from Spencer-Brown for the Laws of Form. " The book is the reference. It is there on the pages. Actually what I said here is misleading. I should have said 'theory of two truths' not 'theory of emptiness'. Brown does not publicly claim the equivalence of Nagarjuna's philosophical model and his calculus but it's there for anyone to see. If his calculus does represent cosmogenesis, then it is equivalent with the version given by Nagarjuna.
Florian;115399 said:
The reason it is possible to be sure that Nagarjuna did not prove that all views are absurd is that it is not possible to do it. This is why I can be so confident that he did not do this.
"It would be helpful if you would indicate whose ideas you are reproducing and give citations or links to their publications so that we can get a better idea of the claims that you, or Jones or whoever, are making. In case of Jones, you seem to be reproducing his talking points, rather than giving us his actual analysis."
Yes. This is what I'm doing. If I'm asked I'll do the analysis, but I don't want to bore people to death. Not everyone is interested.
Florian;115399 said:
Regarding the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism, it is surely our choice whether or not they are compatible.
"If we view Christianity as a set of texts, then I agree with this. The four Gospels give us four possible Jesuses, and when we analyze them to try to pick out their sources, we get even more Jesuses. And when we try to reconcile the Gospels, which requires reading them in a non-literal way, we end up with an infinity of Jesuses due to the fact that everyone carries out the reconciliation in a different way. Leif Vaage uses the reconstructed Q text to make a very good argument that Jesus was the Jewish version of a Greek Cynic philosopher, so I can easily see how the right set of filters will get you a Buddhist Jesus.
The problem is that a religion is not a set of texts. A religion is a set of myths and rituals, and these are drawn, not from texts, but from specific interpretations of texts. For example, the Christian myths drawn from the Old Testament are rather distinct from the Jewish myths drawn from the same source. In regard to Buddhism, the vast majority of Christians interpret the Bible in ways that are not compatible with Buddhism. Christianity is compatible with Buddhism only if we make the dubious assumption that Christianity is something other than what Christians believe in.
An example is the central role played by Jesus in salvation from sin. For most Christians, this is what makes Christianity Christianity. It's also incompatible with most other religions. To make Christianity compatible with Buddhism, you would either have to downplay the role of Jesus to the point of making the religion unrecognizable to most Christians, or modify Buddhism in ways that would make it unrecognizable to most Buddhists.
I have no problem with people modifying existing religions to suite their own purposes. But in doing that, you're not reconciling Buddhism and Christianity. You're just adding one more set of beliefs to an already crowded religious marketplace.
Hmm. I would not agree that religion is a set of myths and rituals, but that's another issue.
Let us just say that it is quite easy to read the New Testament and the Nag Hammadi Library and see Jesus as teaching an essentially Buddhist doctrine. If both Jesus and the Buddha knew the truth then this is what we would expect. If many Christians and one entire branch of the Church choose to interpret Jesus differenly then this is their choice. But the choice of interpretation is ours to make as individuals. There is no need to downgrade Jesus to believe he was a True Man.
I have a feeling we could have a great discussion about this. On the issue of the connection between Brown and Nagarjuna, however, I think there is no room for discussion, since the two relevant texts are there to examine, and they allow of little leeway in interpretation.
I prefer to look at the similarities, rather than the differences; it helps in a lot of areas of life. I think HHDL writes that when he meets someone, even if it's some important person who is a president, he'll remind himself that this person just wishes to be happy and avoid suffering - just like himself - so even HHDL looks for the similarities, not the differences.
I also think that if you get past the dogma, there are many similarities with Christianity and Buddhism. I have a close friend who is a serious but non dogmatic Christian, and at times he seems more Buddhist than many Buddhists I know.
I was surprised and encouraged to see a Christian taking Buddhism seriously and demonstrating such a good understanding of it, and showing how it enriched his understanding and practice of his own faith.
When I saw this thread this morning I thought -- Damn! Here we go again! Then I realized it was a very old thread.
Most of the people on this forum seem to be late-comers to Buddhism (in other words, they weren't born into a culture where Buddhism was the dominant religion). And for many of us -- perhaps most -- we experienced the naysayers...the people who said (in one way or another) that you can't do that.
So I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some convert-Buddhist tell me what I can and can't do with my own spirituality. In other words, to put it politely, when it comes to my spiritual constructs, don't blame me if your mind is too neanderthalensian to comprehend how the concepts and principles of the two religions can be melded into one belief system. Mind your own damn business.
Yes, for me also that book title is true. Without Buddhism I would not be a Christian. I discovered the religion of my upbringing by abandoning it, taking a diversion into Buddhism, where everything is explained much more clearly and thoroughly, and whose founder's teachings have been transmitted corectly and reinforced over the years as opposed to being subjected to a two millenia long game of Chinese Whispers.
It is significant, I think, that Jesus taught for two years and Buddha for forty. I used to think Christianity was a quite idiotic doctrine until Buddhism led me to Taoism and the Upanishads and then back to Jesus again. This time around it all made perfect sense. But maybe I'd put it differently, and say that without Buddhism I would not be trying to become a Christian.
It is a very strange idea, the idea that the Buddha and Jesus did not know and teach the same truth. What are the chances of both of them founding a major world religion in just one lifetime? Few people have this kind of charisma, or are able to speak for so long and so deeply without saying anything that is falsifiable, and using words that can resonate over the centuries to be as fresh today as they ever were. It is implausible.
It is much more plausible that whenever their teachings seem inconsistent we are seriously underestimating one or both of them.
My family if having cheese on bread put marmalade on it. An unusual combination but delicious and normal to us. In a similar way combinations that seem strange to some are perfectly compatible to others. It was studying Buddhism that gave me insight into Christianity. I am not a Christian because I don't on the whole find anything of sufficient value. That is me. Others are different and their combination has merit, of course.
0
DaftChrisSpiritually conflicted. Not of this world.Veteran
Buddhism can, in my opinion, be reconciled with almost any other faith or philosophy. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head that can't are Objectivism and leVayen Satanism.
Comments
Again, can you cite a source? Stathis claims that his extensions to the Laws of Form are compatible with Nagarjuna's logic, but I can't find any reference to a similar claim from Spencer-Brown for the Laws of Form.
Your ideas seem to be identical to Peter Jones' ideas, the language you use is similar to his, and in some cases you have blocks of text in your previous posts that seem very similar to blocks of text in his published papers. For example:
From http://www.philosophypathways.com/newsletter/issue137.html
It would be helpful if you would indicate whose ideas you are reproducing and give citations or links to their publications so that we can get a better idea of the claims that you, or Jones or whoever, are making. In case of Jones, you seem to be reproducing his talking points, rather than giving us his actual analysis.
If we view Christianity as a set of texts, then I agree with this. The four Gospels give us four possible Jesuses, and when we analyze them to try to pick out their sources, we get even more Jesuses. And when we try to reconcile the Gospels, which requires reading them in a non-literal way, we end up with an infinity of Jesuses due to the fact that everyone carries out the reconciliation in a different way. Leif Vaage uses the reconstructed Q text to make a very good argument that Jesus was the Jewish version of a Greek Cynic philosopher, so I can easily see how the right set of filters will get you a Buddhist Jesus.
The problem is that a religion is not a set of texts. A religion is a set of myths and rituals, and these are drawn, not from texts, but from specific interpretations of texts. For example, the Christian myths drawn from the Old Testament are rather distinct from the Jewish myths drawn from the same source. In regard to Buddhism, the vast majority of Christians interpret the Bible in ways that are not compatible with Buddhism. Christianity is compatible with Buddhism only if we make the dubious assumption that Christianity is something other than what Christians believe in.
An example is the central role played by Jesus in salvation from sin. For most Christians, this is what makes Christianity Christianity. It's also incompatible with most other religions. To make Christianity compatible with Buddhism, you would either have to downplay the role of Jesus to the point of making the religion unrecognizable to most Christians, or modify Buddhism in ways that would make it unrecognizable to most Buddhists.
I have no problem with people modifying existing religions to suite their own purposes. But in doing that, you're not reconciling Buddhism and Christianity. You're just adding one more set of beliefs to an already crowded religious marketplace.
It is a given in such topics of discussion that a mere "he said, she said" approach is completely insufficient and totally questionable, and must be backed up by reliable and legitimate reference, which others may scrutinise.
Thanks to all.
What about expressing an insight or experience from practice? There is no backing it. Backing it with a refrence only proves its inauthenticity. You just express it the best you can. It either rings true, or it doesn't. It is a different thing altogether.
Just thinking out loud.
This seems to me to be a very important point, Richard. The confusion between external authority and personal experience/anecdote leads to discomfort on all sides.
In some Buddhist writings, like Longchenpa's The Jewel Ship amongst others, the teaching is framed as a personal encounter but is now quotable as 'authority'. Much the same could be said of the works of the Christian mystics, even of parts of St Paul.
Distinguishing the authentic account of Truth/Dharma from the personal and contingent is, I suggest, part of the work that we must do. It is discernment, not to separate true from false but to transform the personal by application of the True.
If, as so many have suggested, it is found that the authentic accounts correspond in objective as well as subjective ways, then all is 'reconcilable'. The difficulty seems to arise from the belief (buttressed with 'authority') that there is a single right view, a sort of extra ecclesia nulla salus mindset which transcends the Cathloic Church and has infected a great deal of contemporary thought, particularly in religion and nationalism. Of course, those of us who continue to hold a more eclectic view have our own 'authorities' to back us up.
I would add that 'reconciliation' between Buddhism and Christianity, whilst it implies that there has been some sort of rift, could never mean that we see HHDL concelebrating Mass (although, now I come to think of it.....). When two are reconciled, one does not become the other. A new thing, a synergy, can be born.
I couldn't agree more Richard you're quite right....
You could say "I have found that"... or "in my experience", or even "This happens to resonate with me"....
if truly something is not quotable and verifiable, then expect to be contradicted or at least have the point debated.
And that's ok. Surely, that's the point.
My direction is that if people are going to say "so-and-so clearly states that...." or they are going to citr authors whom for them are stating an unambiguous factual truth - then they should be able as far as possible to back that up.
It's all very well holding up a piece or authoritative literature as a point underpinning your view, but some kind of "evidence" is required.
However, the vast majority of devout worshipers at the Grill of Barbecue are more enthusiastic than orthodox. They ask not that that their pork be slathered with the One True Sauce, but only that it be supplied in sufficient quantity.
Personally, I am a vegetarian Shakespearianist. Mindful of the evils of religious emotionalism, I follow the teachings of Master William, who wrote
Sorry but I doubt there is such a reference. For Brown, in the final analysis, Buddhism and Taoism would be interchangeble with advaita Vedanta. His use of certain Chinese refrences in his book is a giveaway. Also his friendship and concordance with Wei Wu Wei would indicate his advaitan/Taoist/Buddhist views. The most obvious link would be that he claims exactly what Nagarjuna claims, that all distinctions are not fundamental. I suspect that his book of poetry 'It Takes Two to Play' (I think it is called) may make his views more clear, but I cannot find a copy. He says of his poetry that it is strictly rigorous.
"Again, can you cite a source? Stathis claims that his extensions to the Laws of Form are compatible with Nagarjuna's logic, but I can't find any reference to a similar claim from Spencer-Brown for the Laws of Form.
"
The book is the reference. It is there on the pages. Actually what I said here is misleading. I should have said 'theory of two truths' not 'theory of emptiness'. Brown does not publicly claim the equivalence of Nagarjuna's philosophical model and his calculus but it's there for anyone to see. If his calculus does represent cosmogenesis, then it is equivalent with the version given by Nagarjuna. "It would be helpful if you would indicate whose ideas you are reproducing and give citations or links to their publications so that we can get a better idea of the claims that you, or Jones or whoever, are making. In case of Jones, you seem to be reproducing his talking points, rather than giving us his actual analysis."
Yes. This is what I'm doing. If I'm asked I'll do the analysis, but I don't want to bore people to death. Not everyone is interested. "If we view Christianity as a set of texts, then I agree with this. The four Gospels give us four possible Jesuses, and when we analyze them to try to pick out their sources, we get even more Jesuses. And when we try to reconcile the Gospels, which requires reading them in a non-literal way, we end up with an infinity of Jesuses due to the fact that everyone carries out the reconciliation in a different way. Leif Vaage uses the reconstructed Q text to make a very good argument that Jesus was the Jewish version of a Greek Cynic philosopher, so I can easily see how the right set of filters will get you a Buddhist Jesus.
The problem is that a religion is not a set of texts. A religion is a set of myths and rituals, and these are drawn, not from texts, but from specific interpretations of texts. For example, the Christian myths drawn from the Old Testament are rather distinct from the Jewish myths drawn from the same source. In regard to Buddhism, the vast majority of Christians interpret the Bible in ways that are not compatible with Buddhism. Christianity is compatible with Buddhism only if we make the dubious assumption that Christianity is something other than what Christians believe in.
An example is the central role played by Jesus in salvation from sin. For most Christians, this is what makes Christianity Christianity. It's also incompatible with most other religions. To make Christianity compatible with Buddhism, you would either have to downplay the role of Jesus to the point of making the religion unrecognizable to most Christians, or modify Buddhism in ways that would make it unrecognizable to most Buddhists.
I have no problem with people modifying existing religions to suite their own purposes. But in doing that, you're not reconciling Buddhism and Christianity. You're just adding one more set of beliefs to an already crowded religious marketplace.
Hmm. I would not agree that religion is a set of myths and rituals, but that's another issue.
Let us just say that it is quite easy to read the New Testament and the Nag Hammadi Library and see Jesus as teaching an essentially Buddhist doctrine. If both Jesus and the Buddha knew the truth then this is what we would expect. If many Christians and one entire branch of the Church choose to interpret Jesus differenly then this is their choice. But the choice of interpretation is ours to make as individuals. There is no need to downgrade Jesus to believe he was a True Man.
I have a feeling we could have a great discussion about this. On the issue of the connection between Brown and Nagarjuna, however, I think there is no room for discussion, since the two relevant texts are there to examine, and they allow of little leeway in interpretation.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Living-Buddha-Christ-Thich-Nhat/dp/0712672818/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353326314&sr=1-1
I prefer to look at the similarities, rather than the differences; it helps in a lot of areas of life. I think HHDL writes that when he meets someone, even if it's some important person who is a president, he'll remind himself that this person just wishes to be happy and avoid suffering - just like himself - so even HHDL looks for the similarities, not the differences.
I also think that if you get past the dogma, there are many similarities with Christianity and Buddhism. I have a close friend who is a serious but non dogmatic Christian, and at times he seems more Buddhist than many Buddhists I know.
Without Buddha I could not be a Christian.
I was surprised and encouraged to see a Christian taking Buddhism seriously and demonstrating such a good understanding of it, and showing how it enriched his understanding and practice of his own faith.
Most of the people on this forum seem to be late-comers to Buddhism (in other words, they weren't born into a culture where Buddhism was the dominant religion). And for many of us -- perhaps most -- we experienced the naysayers...the people who said (in one way or another) that you can't do that.
So I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some convert-Buddhist tell me what I can and can't do with my own spirituality. In other words, to put it politely, when it comes to my spiritual constructs, don't blame me if your mind is too neanderthalensian to comprehend how the concepts and principles of the two religions can be melded into one belief system. Mind your own damn business.
I discovered the religion of my upbringing by abandoning it, taking a diversion into Buddhism, where everything is explained much more clearly and thoroughly, and whose founder's teachings have been transmitted corectly and reinforced over the years as opposed to being subjected to a two millenia long game of Chinese Whispers.
It is significant, I think, that Jesus taught for two years and Buddha for forty. I used to think Christianity was a quite idiotic doctrine until Buddhism led me to Taoism and the Upanishads and then back to Jesus again. This time around it all made perfect sense. But maybe I'd put it differently, and say that without Buddhism I would not be trying to become a Christian.
It is a very strange idea, the idea that the Buddha and Jesus did not know and teach the same truth. What are the chances of both of them founding a major world religion in just one lifetime? Few people have this kind of charisma, or are able to speak for so long and so deeply without saying anything that is falsifiable, and using words that can resonate over the centuries to be as fresh today as they ever were. It is implausible.
It is much more plausible that whenever their teachings seem inconsistent we are seriously underestimating one or both of them.
In a similar way combinations that seem strange to some are perfectly compatible to others. It was studying Buddhism that gave me insight into Christianity. I am not a Christian because I don't on the whole find anything of sufficient value. That is me. Others are different and their combination has merit, of course.
I love weird food combos.