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.
sin and unskillful means
skullchin
Veteran
I was lamenting the attitude toward "sin" the other day with a Christian friend of mine. I mentioned that the most equivalent concept in Buddhism is just being unskillful. I found myself wishing Christians would take a similar view - that "sin" doesn't damn one to Hell, rather it just isn't helpful toward the process of salvation (or enlightenment). IMHO, this is a much healthier/realistic attitude.
0
Comments
but yes
I think the main difference is that christians put the responsibility in the hands of god.
Buddhism put the responsibility in your hands.
Buddhist deal with their emotions and cravings..., learn what they are and why they are here, how we create them etc... observe them, acknowledge them, and so they can avoid nurturing weeds before they become threes.
Christian believe god or the devil put these sinful ideas, perversions etc.. in their heads and ask their god to rid them of their cravings and suffering.
Dealing with their emotions and cravings in this way leads too often to obsessing over them and nurturing weeds which become giant unmanageable trees...
This is why so many priests have raped kids.
If they interpreted the words of Jesus "I'm god" as "we, all humans, are god", maybe Christianity would be different...
It is a partial reflection of truth, as unskillful action lead us into dukkha, but increasing it into sin and hell seems like a deepening of contrast to reach young, immature (or closed) minds. Or not
From the bit of lurking I have done, I see I have a long way to understanding Buddhism. I am Christian but not an evangelical or Bible thumper.
It's refreshing to see people freely asking questions and helping one another study without flaming or insults.
Most Christians do not understand Christianity and most Buddhists do not really understand Buddhism either. From my perspective, neither should be judging the other because they are almost identical, once understood.
I have done some casual reading on both religion though, maybe too casual
Quite a revelation
No. Check my other thread where I disproved this. Christianity has zero in common with Buddhism.
However, if were talking about Gnostic Christianity (the first and original version), then we could say they are extremely similar and even see some direct Buddhist influence. However, these teachings are not even known to Orthodox, Biblical Christianity, let alone accepted. The Gnostic texts are non Biblical though and were burned by the Catholic Church. You'll find very few, if any, Bible verses that jive with Buddhism (I admit, there are a few, and in fact, very powerful and profound.)
.
This is an entirely sweeping statement, because first of all, in my opinion, the two are not as comparable as one might think, and I think "Almost identical is really stretching it a bit,
and secondly to say that most Christians do not understand Christianity and most Buddhists don't understand Buddhism, is grossly insulting, and leads me to wonder what it is you know that we don't.
Christ's primary teaching was to love one another as he had loved them.
The Buddha's primary teaching was the cause of suffering and the cessation of suffering.
How much more truly, does anyone need to know?
"Love thy God" (i.e. Dhamma; the way of Truth; What is)
"Love thy neighbor as thy self" (lose thy "self" to becoming one with the flow of life)
"Do unto others only as you would have them do unto you" (respect all life with compassion and understanding)
"Let it be done on all Earth as it is in Heaven" (teach nirvana and the cessation of suffering)
"judge not least ye be judged" (avoid promoting bad karma)
"forgive those who trespass against thee" (seek Peace)
"believe in what I am teaching and though thee shall die, thee shall not die." (ascension unto the end of rebirthing - to Heaven).
"I am the way, the truth, and the life [incarnate]" (Tao, Dharma, Tathagata; Buddha)
"Have no faith and do not believe in these things, and you will continue your eternal suffering (Hell)." (Dukkha)
On and on .. I doubt that you could find anything taught by Jesus that is contrary to the teachings of Gautama. But I'm not going to get into a silly religious quarrel.
If I've ever seen a post that makes me want to rip my hair out and explode my brain, this is it. Congratulations.
How does this in any way concur with Buddhism? A non-theistic religion? There is no God in Buddhism. Buddha rejected such concepts as a reification fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_philosophy#Historical_context
You then try to twist the meaning of the word to mean Dhamma, the way of the Truth, and what is. Sorry, but Dhamma is not God and the way is not God. That is an equivocation fallacy of epic proportions. And if you're still not convinced, look here:
"From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality. ... In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world." Nyanaponika Thera (Therevada monk and co-founder of Buddhist Publication society)
Yeah, what a stretch of an interpretation. That's butchering the English language. Your translation is way off. Not to mention, if you just left the original words as they are, they are in line with a quote of Buddha which similarly described the same golden rule. But nope, you had to twist it to mean something else which only hurt your case.
Again, you don't have to bring compassion and all that to make it fit Buddhism.
"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
Udana-Varga 5,1
Wow. You have no respect for language. I could say, "The dog ran to the park." You would interpret it as "My mom went to the grocery store." That's how far off you are.
I think this is the verse that you're looking for that is more in line with Buddhism.
"The kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21
Notice how this actually denies a literal heaven, though this seems to be at odds with the majority of the Bible.
What? How is that even close to an accurate interpretation? Karma has to do with your own actions. The Bible verse you quoted is saying don't judge others, or else you'll be judged or something along those lines.
Seek peace? Really? Since when is that a tenet of Buddhism? How is that even a unique similarity between the two? I could say Christianity is similar to the hippies of the 70s because they promoted peace as well. Seriously dude. Think.
No. Buddhism denies a soul, it denies an afterlife, and it denies the transmigration of souls. Fail.
If I could pick any verse more reprehensible and more contrary to Buddhism, it would be this verse. In full context: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." You know that implies that those who don't believe in Jesus and accept him as Savior, then they DON'T get to the father and instead, end up in Hell. Buddha said the opposite and said not to believe anything, even if he has said it. He doesn't ask you to believe, just in him, or else face condemnation.
Uh, that's entirely contrary to Buddhism. This verse implies that you ought to believe the things in the Bible, and if you refuse to take it's doctrines on faith, you'd be condemned to Hell. If Buddha was here today, this verse would certainly convict him as a non-believer and he would certainly frown upon these teachings. Buddha said DO NOT believe things just because they are written in your scriptures. When would you ever hear Christianity say that?
Yeah, look to the Gnostic Gospels and you'll find plenty of Jesus sayings that are parallel to Buddhism, but you find too many in the Bible.
Btw, notice how none of your examples included some of the main teachings of Buddhism. When would you ever hear Christianity agree that all existence is empty, there is no eternal soul, all forms are impermanent, all beings are impermanent, nothing has any intrinsic existence. Never.
.
Drop has Gnosis
I've had this idea for a long while...
If you can only change the way you think of "god" in Christianity, from the common first degree interpretation of some dude in the sky to consciousness, Christianity make lots more sense.
Imagine Jesus, trying to explain how things are, saying things like "god is in all of us", trying to make the people understand by speaking their language...
And then take some people who did not understand, trying to retell the lessons of Jesus, but with the fundamental misunderstanding that "god" is that dude in the sky, then it would give you something that would sound much like the bible.
But then again i know very little about the bible...
It just seem right from what i know.
eeewwwww!!!
yessindeedie, if anyone wishes to do this, please go out into a far and distant place. Be sure to come back by teatime though, or you'll miss out on the dunkin' do'nuts.....
The big problem is, you are applying a general, non-specific benign interpretation of the perception of God to your way of thinking.
Christians - and other theistic religions - hold god as some supernatural, omnipotent being, and such a generalisation as yours would be completely unacceptable to them.
This is not a theistic person's way of looking at things. This is more pagan than Christian, so I'm afraid you're onto a non-starter, Pat.
But did Jesus saw God in this way is interesting nonetheless don't you think?
and that one single fundamental misinterpretation could have lead to the misunderstanding of Christianity by the vast majority/all Christians.
I'm an ex-Christian and have extensively broke my conditioning already. I don't tolerate unsound doctrine, especially when it tries to attach itself to Buddhist philosophy like a parasite. Why muddy up the clean waters?
And as Krishnamurti said, until the false is seen as false, the truth will never reveal itself. So recognize false doctrine as false and don't try to turn lies into truth.
We must see that Biblical (orthodox) Christianity is false. When people try to twist it's teachings to make it better, it is no longer Christian philosophy.
However, there are parts of the Bible that do have truthful and profound verses, but they are rare.
For those who say that Jesus' teachings are in line with Buddhism, they are. However, I'm talking about the actual Jesus whose teachings are preserved in the Gnostic Gospels. The Biblical mythical Jesus however, is not at all in line with Buddhist teachings.
.
I say its important to dissolve your expectations of people, because it prevents you from seeing or relating to them.
I agree somewhat with the notion that Jesus spoke some similar ideas. If you consider his audience was possibly much more samsaric, some of the disparity would make sense. It would have to go case by case, word by word though. Saying Jesus was this or Jesus was that is projection, and certainly not accurate. Too much time and dogma and words and minds and desires in between.
With hope,
Matt
There are certain beliefs that one must adhere to to be a Christian. You have to accept Jesus as Savior and the one true God. You have to accept that he rose from the dead. You have to believe in God. You have to vow to serve and worship God. These aren't things I am accusing people of. These are things put on themselves by identifying as Christian.
.
The problem is most christians holding the wrong view on Jesus's dharma revelation of Christian and Jesus is the same. Although there are Buddhist who do not understand Buddhism, but they know that they are Buddha by nature. Almost identical is wrong view either.
The true reality of one dharma realm
"World-Honored One, since time without a beginning, sentient beings have been transmigrating, through the four modes of birth, to and fro along the six life-paths in the Three Realms of Existence, suffering endlessly in life and death. World-Honored One, is this mass of sentient beings, or ocean of sentient beings, increasing or decreasing? I am unable to understand this profound question. How should I answer if someone asks me this question?"
At that time the World-Honored One told Sariputra, "Very good! Very good! You are able to ask me about this profound meaning because you want to give peace to all sentient beings, to give happiness to all sentient beings, to sympathize with all sentient beings, to help all sentient beings, and to give comfort and benefits to all sentient beings such as gods and humans. Sariputra, if you did not ask the Tathagata, the Samyak-Sa?buddha, about this meaning, there would be many faults. Why? Then, in present and future times, gods, humans, and all other sentient beings would long undergo distress and damage and lose forever [the opportunity for] all benefits, peace, and joy.
"Sariputra, the enormously wrong view refers to seeing increase in the realm of sentient beings or to seeing decrease in the realm of sentient beings.
Sariputra, the enormous perilous tribulation refers to one's obstinate adherence to the view of increase or decrease in the realm of sentient beings. Sariputra, those who are obstinate in their wrong adherence misguidedly walk the evil way in the long night. For this reason, they will go down to the evil life-paths in their future lives.
"Sariputra, foolish ordinary beings do not see, in accord with true reality, the one dharma realm. Because they do not see, in accord with true reality, the one dharma realm, they invoke the wrong view in their minds, saying that the realm of sentient beings increases or that the realm of sentient beings decreases.
"Sariputra, the dharma body is a dharma of no birth and no death, neither of the past nor of the future, because it is away from the two opposites. Sariputra, it is not of the past because it is apart from birth, and it is not of the future because it is apart from death. Sariputra, the dharma body of the Tathagata is permanent because it is the changeless dharma and the endless dharma. Sariputra, the dharma body of the Tathagata is eternal because it is the everlasting refuge and it is equal [in all sentient beings] unto the endless future. Sariputra, the dharma body of the Tathagata is cool because it is the dharma of non-duality and the dharma of no differentiation. Sariputra, the dharma body of the Tathagata never changes because it is the dharma without cessation and the dharma without formation.
"Sariputra, it is this dharma body that, fettered by boundless afflictions more numerous than the sands of the Ganges, has been following along with the world since time without a beginning. When it is drifting to and fro in the ocean waves of life and death, it is called sentient beings. Sariputra, it is also this dharma body that, tired of the suffering of life and death in the world, abandoning all the desires and quests, cultivating the six paramitas, and going through the 84,000 Dharma Doors to train in the bodhi Way, is called Bodhisattvas.
http://www.purifymind.com/Sutras37.htm
I see that that's what you think. It still seems presumptuous. For instance, I know a Christian who considers himself more in communion with his God than fearing or worshiping, but still identifies as Christian. I also know several Christians who view Jesus as the ideal person, and by following his archetypal example you find God. Neither seem to fit with your insistence.
Its not about accusation, its about projecting meaning. If someone says "I consider myself Christian" you automatically assume all of those things about them? Don't you see the chain of ignorance that you prescribe for yourself by doing that? If someone said to me "I consider myself Christian" I would hear that they consider themselves a Christian, nothing more.
It doesn't matter I suppose, it just feels like we could make a lot more space in our heads for people than deciding what their beliefs mean, and mean to them.
With warmth,
Matt
I'm sorry, but I think it's pretty presumptuous, and ironic, that you discredit the validity of the Biblical Jesus but then profess your faith in the "actual" Jesus of the Gnostics. It takes as much faith to believe in either, and in fact, most Gnostic texts are a good deal newer than the New Testament writings. And while, yes, the Gospel of Thomas presents a kind of zen Jesus, if you think that all Gnostic texts are in line with Buddhism, you haven't read many of the preserved gnostic writings. They are diverse, cryptic, and rich with western mythical themes and archetypal imagery... and many of them have little in common with Buddhism. And let's not forget that the Gnostics were divided into many groups, too, like the early Orthodox Church, each group fighting to have their understanding of Jesus canonized.
At the risk of presumption myself, I would guess that perhaps the version of Christianity you broke from has less in common with Buddhism than the more esoteric traditional forms of Christianity. While obviously much different than Buddhism at the relative level, the metaphysical end-goal of both paths could very well be the same: Nibbana and Theosis (union with the apophatic Godhead about whom nothing can really be said). I don't know this for sure, of course, but I would strongly suggest having a look at the writings of Frithjof Schuon, who shows that, while religions look completely different and incompatible from a relative perspective, they share a transcendental unity.
There is also an ascetic and contemplative tradition in the Eastern Church called Hesychasm which very much resembles certain Buddhist practices. Of course, I am not saying they are the same. But I think that one can find truth and liberation/salvation via either path, if followed and practiced to their ends.