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.
Buddhist and Christian at the same time?
Hello all,
I have spent my life learning about Christ. I am fascinated with His love and ability to forgive. I accept Him if you will.
I have also read numerous Buddhist books and believe the way Buddhists approach the mind is so true. I have always said that I wish more Christians acted like Buddhists! The guiding path that leads to love is so amazing.
My question. Is anyone here a believer in Christ (God forbid- the christian term--:o) and follow principles of Buddhism as well.
Personally,I really don't understand why they have to contradict. Sure- there are differences. There are differences in a marriage as well.
Just wondering.
todd
I have spent my life learning about Christ. I am fascinated with His love and ability to forgive. I accept Him if you will.
I have also read numerous Buddhist books and believe the way Buddhists approach the mind is so true. I have always said that I wish more Christians acted like Buddhists! The guiding path that leads to love is so amazing.
My question. Is anyone here a believer in Christ (God forbid- the christian term--:o) and follow principles of Buddhism as well.
Personally,I really don't understand why they have to contradict. Sure- there are differences. There are differences in a marriage as well.
Just wondering.
todd
0
Comments
It really doesn't matter to Buddhists whether God exists or not, it's not worth pondering the imponderable.
The thing to do is to realise Suffering, and end it.
From a personal point of view, I can say that the Christ message and story fits well with the BuddhaDharma, although I know that this is less acceptable to some adherents of both. Each illuminates the other for me and I have had my practice endorsed by some wonderful teachers far more 'spiritual' than I am.
The fact is that studying both has deepened my understanding and appreciation of both.
Make no mistake, if we accept that there is value here, we have to examine and adjust our hermeneutic approach to both, abandoning belief in any sort of extra ecclesia nulla salus for either. This leads us into strange territory where we question 'authority' and search out the ground we share rather than what separates us.
Over the years, I have tried to persuade others of my view of the excellence of the synthesis of the messages and practices, and I have come to the conclusion that it is experienced as quite threatening by some people. Instead of hearing it as a cause for joy, they express a need to find 'wrong' in it. It has led me to understand the seeds of exclusivity and discrimination that blight most, if not all, religious disciplines. It has also strengthened my own belief in the value of learning more and more about both Buddhism and the Christian message.
At the root of my personal view (if a view can have a root) is study and meditation. Initially, as a teenager back in the 1950s and '60s, it was the Bible that I got to know, along with M. R. James's Apocryphal New Testament which I found on a second-hand bookstall when I was about 15. What I found appeared to contradict a lot of what I was hearing in church. Jesus said that he had not lost anyone and St Paul said that we are all reconciled but the churches maintained that they had the truth and all the rest was false - and damned as a result. Then along came Vatican 2, just as I was moving from Protestant to Catholic.
I could go on but that's more than enough. The result of my years of study and argument and discussion and prayer and meditation has been more uncertainty about dogmas of all sorts and more hope in the reality of liberation by whatever name you want to give it.
The beauty and psychological insights of the Old and New Testaments, its mythic heft, alongside the teachings of the Dharma - and not forgetting my dabbling in secular humanism, paganism, Sufi Islam, social anthropology and 35 years as a counsellor - all this has led me to a synergetic approach with powerful, personal results.
While i have a great respect for Christ and his teachings mixing the two results in confusion. Chocolate cake or Cream cake...You start feeling not so good if you have more then you can handle.
Thank you for your advice. Some of us need, I think, more than one map.
A good meal has more than one course and neither Buddhism nor Christ's message is cake.
I wish more Christians acted like Christ!
Wouldn't do much for the housing market LOL "Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."
Correct me if I am wrong, but according to Thich Nhat Hanh, a Zen Buddist Master, they can exist side by side. There are also books with comparison teachings as well.
But there are some teachings in the New Testament that really don't seem to coincide, at least to me. I don't believe that you have to accept Christ in order to be save, I don't believe that you have to believe in God in the same way as Christians, and I don't believe that "hell" is a literal place of torment that goes on forever.
i have a leather bound red letter edition i was quite fond of back in the day. i have always been inspired by jesus, just not so much the rest of the bible... however, to me, jesus is like gandhi or martin luther king... all great people who had worthy and just messages. i don't believe i have to have faith in jesus to be saved and i do not believe in heaven or hell as actual real places. (now, mentally... that's another topic all together) so take that how you will.
<
that man
while he was in Sussex, England, meeting with many Christian priests. During an interview he started talking about the 'ultimate truth'.
He said:
"The ultimate truth is like the flavor of an apple, which you can't see with the eye, or hear with the ear. The only way to experience it is to put the teaching into practice. Once you've tasted it, you'll no longer be in any doubt about it's flavour, and you won't have to ask anyone else, the problem will be solved".
I found it interesting that when I had some Christian missionaries at my home, they were talking about truth in Christ, and they were talking about a priest who was preaching and he said, the truth is like the flavour of a fruit. (I think I cut the missionary off to talk about what Ajahn Chah said.)
Same fruit? same truth?
I have heard as well that these so called seperate paths leads to confusion.. I think particularly this could be true with Buddhism and Christianity... but IMO, due to what I've seen, I think it's possible to have harmony between the two. Certainly it works for Thich Hat, and some other Buddhists. One, which said in an interview on youtube, claims the two are pointing to the same thing.
Good luck.
Christians too, like Thomas Merton or Brother David Steindl-Rast, have found that harmony - a good metaphor, Shanyin.
I think part of the issue is that Buddhists don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, and that seems to be a main facet of being considered "Christian."
As others have said it is possible to have your own interpretation of Christianity and follow both Buddhist and Christian teachings, but I think it can cause many difficulties. Simple meditation can be used by anyone regardless of their religious beliefs (and indeed I have heard of Christians using meditations that are based on Buddhist practices) but any further than that seems to create more divisions.
So you won't accept him if I don't?
Beliefs I consider irreconcilable would be:
1. Man is a sinner destined to hell unless he is forgiven and Jesus is the only way to that forgiveness as opposed to Buddhism's everyone is a Buddha and just needs to strip away the crud keeping it from shining through.
2. Living multiple lives versus eternity in heaven or hell after one life.
There are others that will conflict of course, those are just the top two that come to mind for me. Because the concepts are incompatible one has to be watered down or 'liberalized' or simply disbelieved to make room for the other.
i agree with this.
to be honest, sometimes i confuse myself just trying to study different forms of buddhism, haha. but for me, the heart of the matter is that my introduction to religion was through christianity and at a very young age, i realized it does not work for me. i have no reason to continue my relationship with it.
The Bible even points out that the demons believe in God, and that you have to live by God's ethics to to to heaven. That may have been a bad paraphrasing, but if God exists, I think he/she just cares about how we treat each other. Really, good conduct and intention is more important than belief in a specific ideology. That applies universally to Muslims, Christians Atheists, etc. You do good because other people are conscious beings just like you, and they can feel pain, just like you. You don't do good out of fear of hell fire. That's just cowardice and not even a real representation of the real heaven and hell. I don't believe in heaven or hell in the sense fundamentalists believe in. I just believe that the real heaven and hell are states that people create on earth through their actions. You can put yourself through hell, just as you can put completely innocent people through hell. That's the complicated part. Hell is crack babies, hell is war, hell is cutting someone off on the highway, hell is oppression, hell us starvation, hell is depression, etc. You get the point.
Couldn't agree more.
In metta,
Raven
bingo!
i've seen this discussion in buddhism... (real heaven/hell realms vs. creating heaven/hell for yourself in this realm) but i've never seen this discussion amongst christians and i wonder why. it seems to me to be so much clearer and make so much more sense. could be wrong, but every christian i have ever met believes in heaven/hell as actual real places.
edit: i take that back... very interesting article on jesus' teachings of hell. apparently, he never even used the word "hell" to begin with, but rather "hell" is a poor translation of the word "gehenna" which the author in this article/book discusses his opinion on the real meaning. basically, that gehenna is an actual physical valley outside of jerusalem and every instance in which jesus uses the term "hell"(he says "gehenna"), he is warning the jews that their city will be destroyed. interesting.
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html
More then one Map ? They go to different places and require different routes to follow, Although they may share some positive comminality you have to decide where you want to be going the higher realms ? Only to once again fall back eventually to a worse off position where you started or Enlightenment if you wish to be free from the general sufferings of all contaminated rebirth and unhappiness all together ?
Only a man with two bodies could follow more then one path at a time !
When I visit an area, say West Cornwall, I usually have three or four maps. At least two of them are O.S. maps of different scales, others are pictorial. Each adds something to my exploration.
Of course, the difference is that you, dear friend, appear to have a notion of a single path and a unique destination. We differ in that.
That belief may not work for you, which is all good. However, there are plenty who can and do make it work.
In metta,
Raven
My point was there are multiple paths, A man cannot have two masters however.
Perhaps my life and work has been that we delude ourselves when we accept "masters" when we are condemned to freedom - I cannot quite shake off my teenage existentialism LOL
That's correct. Hell in the sense of a place where you go after death to be tortured for all eternity is not a Bible teaching. It's a dogma created to get bums on pews and no doubt a good way of extracting money for Christian Inc.
Gnostic Christianity seems to have been in competition with the literal Christianity from the 1st Century and there's many similarities between Buddhism and Gnostic Christianity. Gnostic = Knowledge, which could equate to Enlightenment. A corking book to read on the subject is The Gospel of the Second Coming by Freke and Gandy. It's written in a light-hearted, irreverent manner; it's funny; intelligent and written allegorically; a bit like they say the Bible should be read.
It makes many interesting points, such as why there's only four Gospels, why some Gospels made it into the final cut of the Bible, and others were destroyed (or hidden), such as the Gospel of Thomas.
And it also explains why we have the Christianity we have today, where-as it sounds like we should've had (what sounds to me) a more Buddhist-like Christianity.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gospel-Second-Coming-Timothy-Freke/dp/1401915523/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283630863&sr=8-1
that sounds interesting and a lot more like how i always wished christianity was. it's sad, but not surprising to me that the hell-based beliefs were more powerful.
Now, I think the best way to approach this question is by giving a very brief summary of what the Gospel is as taught in the Bible. Bare with me.
It starts like this: God is just. You and I have committed injustice against God (Sin - Romans 3:23). The punishment rises with the dignity of the one insulted. If you commit injustice against a judge, opposed to a homeless man, the punishment for insulting the judge will be much greater.* So therefore, if you insult an infinite God, the punishment is infinite (this is where we get the idea of an eternal Hell). So Hell is the punishment which the sinner justly receives. But what is Hell? Hell is constantly described throughout the Bible as a place of fire. Fire is used repeatedly in the Bible as a metaphor of Gods presence, like Moses and the burning bush (which didn't burn up because God is infinite). Some people describe hell as an absence of God. But rather, I think its His wrath against the injustice (Romans 1:18). So God is just. We have established that. But God is not only just, but also love. So in short, He sends His Son Jesus, who is the same divine essence of the Father but a different person. The Son is born of a virgin Mary by the spirit of God to do the will of the Father (Matthew 12:50) Man is merely natural, and therefore fallen to do the will of the devil (John 8:44). Jesus walks on this Earth living a life absolutely perfect (He is the fulfillment of the law - Romans 10:4). He then went to the cross and bore our sin, and the punishment which you and I deserve (the wrath God) is poured out on His Son on that tree (Isaiah 53:10, Philippians 4:18, Galatians 3:13) which satisfies the perfect divine justice of God. And the perfect life which Christ lived can be imputed to us by faith, as Christ was the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). So this was the pain of the cross. It wasn't the cat of nine tails, or the 39 lashes minus one. Its was the cup of Gods wrath.
Now to say that one can be a Christian and also be a buddist totally defeats the purpose of Christs work on the cross from a biblical perspective. Christ died to reconcile us to God. When we believe in Jesus Christ through faith alone we are literally placed in Christ, and this is only possible by His atonement for our sin. When we are reconciled to God through His Son, we are counted righteous in Him. We are at that moment declared "justified" for all time. But that's only a lesser means to a greater means. Why did Christ die for us? Well because he loved us yes, but Titus 2:14 it says it was to "purify a people for Himself, zealous of good works". When we put our faith in Jesus Christ, he takes out our heart of stone, and replaces it with a heart of flesh. (Ezekial 36:26). This is a supernatural work greater than the very creation of the universe. He does this so that while on earth your will becomes that of the Fathers will, until that day when you die and reach heaven where you will be in Christs infinitely beautiful presence for an eternity of eternities. In heaven your joy will be full. Yet it will never cease to deepen. A joy that would fill you with such ecstasy, that unless you were strengthened, you would be destroyed! Why does God save you? For His glory. What glorifies God the most? When your joy is full in Him. Heaven will be an infinite chasing down of the glories of God. John 17:3 says "now this is eternal life, that they may know you"!
But here's the thing. Jesus said, "nobody can serve two masters". You hate one, and love the other. (Matthew 6:24). Real christianity is not about following a strict set of rules or ordinances. Real Christianity Is all about desire. It's about catching a glimpse of the beauties/glory of Jesus Christ so that to pursue anything other than Him seems absolutely absurd!
Matthew 13:44 - The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.*
Ezekiel 36:26 - I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.*
A "heart of stone" is unresponsive to the things of God. But a "heart of flesh" is not. When you fall on Christ as your only hope, and come away from your own efforts He says "you shall be my people, and I will be your God"
Everything is absurd... Even Buddhism. A radical doctrine, I know. But it's what Christ taught. And in that sense, He was the most radical of all.
You don't have to have a label to be buddhist, but you do have to have label to be Christian. That's how I see you can practice both "religions" at the same time in harmony (Buddhism isn't really a religion).
ROTFLMAO.....
I have just returned from some time studying the Christian faith.
Christianity is caught within its own web of desire. It wishes claim to be the only way to God.
Jesus of Nazareth was concerned about social issues and confronted the authorities of his days with the blatant hypocrisy that served to constrain the marginalized but served the interests of the privileged.
And then the church too over and claimed that no one can get to God, or otherwise become enlightened, unless they subscribed to church doctrine - as evidenced by the above post.
Certainly there is little difference between what Jesus taught and that of the Buddha. There is a vast ocean of difference between what Jesus taught and what the church teaches.
I agree and have been reading about this subject, and the Christianity we have today is very much just one school of thought.
I'll try to explain. Early Christianity was a melting pot of different ideas with the two main contenders being the Gnostic Christianity and the Literal Orthodox Christianity which is the mainstream today.
The Roman Emperor Constantine, in a political move, unified Christianity under one Bishop, with one set of books (The Bible), and one set of doctrines. Believe it or not, (according to the historian Elaine Pagels), Christianity has never been as unified as it is today.
All the other early Christian books that didn't make the final cut of the Bible were destroyed; though from writings at the time; their existence was known.
But in 1945 a goat herder in Nag Hamandi, Northern Egypt found a pot that had been hidden for 1600 years containing the Gnostic Scriptures; these were some of the books that had been thought lost (burnt); though they didn't really come to light until the 1950s. In fact many of the books were burnt by the goat herder's Mother; she used them to light a fire to cook food.
Anyway, studies of these scriptures paint a very different picture of what many early Christians believed as Christianity. In fact it almost sounds Buddhist in nature. It's worth having a look if this interests you. May I suggest anything by Elaine Pagels (particularly the Gnostic Gospels), and another good book is The Gospel of the Second Coming by Freke and Gandy.
Here's a small peice from one of the Gnostic Gospels:
Jesus said,
It sounds very Buddhist to me. And although I'm far from being any expert (I've only read a couple of books on the subject), it seems that these early Gnostic Christians tried to discover how they worked from the inside, using stuff like meditation, to try and discover the nature of 'God'. There were also schools of thought that the resurrection of Jesus was an allegorical text that wasn't speaking about the physical resurrection of the body, but of the spirit; a spiritual awakening; maybe Enlightenment?
Other things that have rang some bells is that I remember hearing that the Buddha said he had met God, and that this God was a deluded being who thought he created the Universe; but he hadn't (I can't remember the full story, maybe someone could help me out with a link).
But in the Gnostic Scriptures it was written something very similar in that 'God' wasn't the creator of everything; he just thought he was. The creator was something else that created God to 'administrate'.
Okay, I'm being vague here; I only just understand the gist of it myself; and I'm trying to convey that there's more to Christianity than what we may think there is.
I find the history of early Christianity interesting.
Agree Tosh ... in my experience it only took me so far though, in terms of how to progress in the ending of suffering.
Tosh - there are many 'schools of thought' running through Christianity today although I would use the word 'criticism'. To suggest Christianity is unified is tempting to contemplate but is reality, unrealistic. There are many divisions.
The Nag Hamandi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls contain numerous codices not all of them applicable to Christianity - and your potted history of Christianity is pretty raw.
Given those two thoughts much of Christian thought arose in opposition to various 'heresies' some of which were from the Gnostic tradition.
Of interest is the fact that such opposition arose, primarily, against the idea that anyone could gain some 'independent' knowledge of God outside of the Christian Church - a position that is still held today.
The Gnostic gospels are certainly different and I agree there are many Buddhist overtones.
I think you have to accept that there was a Buddhist influence within the Middle East well before the arrive of Jesus. There was trade with India via the Red Sea and via the desert route. People would not have been ignorant of Buddhism. How much influence one can only guess.
What you quote here is from the Gospel of Thomas - which is really not a Gnostic text but what is called a 'book of saying' by Jesus. Certainly, because the GoT lacks a narrative it is readily accepted as gnostic in its nature.
Certainly parts of gnostic texts sound almost Buddhist but other parts are very much non-Buddhist.
I have not heard that story previously.
Interesting, perhaps - bloody, certainly.
Acceptence of Christ as "one's Lord and Saviour" in order to be saved and a literal "Hell" as a place of eternal conscious torment are taught by certain churches/denominations, not the bible. What you refer to are certain peoples' interpretations. It doesn't have to be this way. (I've studied and written extensively on these topics - at least from a non-professional position).
Good to have this topic, so thanks for the wondering
I was raised as a Protestant, but since my eighteenth I don't go to church anymore. Recently I started with Zen and I also get more appreciation for my traditional Christian faith. I think it is because the essential is one. There is only one path, the path to the essential. It has various names like Christ, God or Enlightment. When I read the words of Christian mystics, like Eckhart, I notice that there a no big differences with for instance Zen:
Greetings,
Steppewolf.
This does not necessarily mean that practitioners must believe all other religions are precluded from also having a valid path. Unfortunately, like all other religions, there are arrogant individual Buddhist practitioners who believe in their exclusive access to enlightenment through the practice of their teacher, school or tradition.
In my experience Buddhist practice continues to show me that there is different paths up the same mountain rather than many paths up different mountains.
That's really cool!
I very much like (and agree) with this mountain analogy.
Would you call Buddhism a <i>pluralistic</i> belief?
Buddhism (Buddha's Teaching) is not a belief
My appreciation began after reading <a href="http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j34/dionysios.asp">an interview</a> with Archimandrite Dionysios, and discovering that Gregory Palamas is said to have constantly prayed: "Enlighten my darkness." It also struck me how Hesychastic prayer bears a superficial resemblance with Buddhist meditation, e.g., specific body postures, deliberate breathing patterns, acquiring an inner stillness, sense restraint, etc. It was years ago, however, and my appreciation quickly faded; but it was recently rekindled by my reading of Plato's <i>Republic</i>, as well as other of his dialogues, and a conversation I had at a local Greek Orthodox church.
While I practice Buddhism and am interested in things like philosophy and religion in general, I'm a very skeptical and secular person by nature. I have a hard time seeing into what some call 'the realm of the divine' — i.e., Plato's realm of forms, Spinoza's absolute substance, Buddhism's unconditioned reality — and I regularly doubt that such a realm even exists, but my recent readings of Plato have at least piqued my interest in trying. And talking with my kind guide at <a href="http://www.goholytrinity.org/index.php">Holy Trinity</a> last weekend during the annual Greek festival got me thinking about Christianity in a whole new way.
Seeking to explore this subject more, I decided to ask Simon, my long-time <i>kalyana-mita</i> (admirable friend) from <a href="http://newbuddhist.com/forum/">newbuddhist.com</a>, to explain to me <a href="http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?p=126344#post126344">his views</a> regarding the "excellence of the synthesis of the messages and practices" of Buddhism and Christianity. After receiving a brief message saying that it may take a day or two for him to condense his views for me, I was delighted to find this reply later in the day:
<blockquote>Despite what I said about taking time to reply, I reflected on this over my latte and toast in the autumn sun while in town and have put together a preliminary outline for your consideration. As you have been speaking to Orthodox Christians, you might like to consider the Christos Pantocrator with what I say about creative <i>sunyatta</i>.
I would add (because these first lines are written after the rest) that a fundamental principle, on which all rests, is that 'revelation' does not stop, either with the Buddha's death or with that of Saint Paul, but that we can inform our understanding across the ages.
First of all, I must stress that I do not imagine that I have a complete or, even, a completely coherent account. The fact is that I see humanity as progressing towards a more perfect understanding and we, you and I at this time and in this place, are within the process, the work in progress (see Note below). A synthesis will require the total transformation of all the elements, resulting in something new and, probably, very alien to our present thinking. This, for me, is the meaning of Jesus' saying about the grain of wheat that must fall to the ground and 'die' before it can grow. My personal image is that of the caterpillar the pupa and the butterfly. Just as the individual ego resists the apparent death of awakening, so bodies of belief like faiths and religions resist their own 'transmogrification'.
This leads me to my second point, which is that I expect to find contradictions because those are the places where the most reflection is needed and where the energy of that mediative reflection is transformative. Do you know the poetry of George Herbert? One of his poems, which is now sung as a hymn, <i>The Elixir</i>
<blockquote>TEACH me, my God and King,
In all things Thee to see</blockquote>
The last two stanzas talk about "the famous stone/That turneth all to gold", the Philosophers' Stone of the alchemists taken as a metaphor for the Christ-inspired mind:
<blockquote>A servant with this clause
Makes drudgery divine :
Who sweeps a room as for Thy laws,
Makes that and th' action fine.
This is the famous stone
That turneth all to gold ;
For that which God doth touch and own
Cannot for less be told.</blockquote>
It is at the points of resistance that transformation occurs. Here, the poet Rilke and his attitude to praise for "the secateur and the rose" helped form my view.
Both you and I, I seem to remember, find inspiration in the <i>Gospel of Thomas</i>, which sometimes makes it hard to dialogue with those Christians who reject it as authentic or inspired, nevertheless, there are still enough hints in the canonical New Testament to point us to areas of the Way that Jesus taught that have tended to be overlooked or ignored in practice, and the same goes for the Buddhist sutras. These gaps are, to some extent, filled when both are brought together.
Here are some examples:
Jesus says that we are "deny our selves". This occurs in both the canonical and the Thomas gospels, although Thomas is closer to an 'Eastern' approach, an abandonment of <i>ahamkara</i> (the word McGregor Ross uses in his <i>Thomas</i> translations), of <i>atman</i>. The classical explanation is one of self-denial, of disciplining the senses but stops short of a denial of 'self'. I would argue that the Buddhist notion of the aggregates empowers the Christian's self denying practices, making it mindful of the deceit of the world that is often the subject of scripture. Here, as in other examples, Buddhist texts reveal a model of 'how' and Christian texts reveal outcome, particularly if we take the Teilhard view of the Cosmic Christ and the Omega Point. The thorny question of 'soul' must, in the end, be up to each one of us to decide for ourselves, if possible from our own experiences arising from practice or enlightenment.
Of course, there are challenges. By and large, Christians do not accept the notion of <i>anatta</i> as traditionally described and Buddhists object to a teleology or purposefulness other than personal. We have to go deeper.
Deeper brings us to <i>sunyatta</i> and <i>kenosis</i> and the mystery of creative emptiness. Much argument is wasted on whether or not there is a 'Creator', conceived along quasi-human lines. As I see it, Jesus reveals that there is compassion and caring which is behind and subtends all that is, from which all arises and into which all falls back, and that this parent-like caring is personal as well as ineffable. It is, if you like, the Buddha-nature (or indwelling Christ) of the universe.
Arising from the depths of mystery, a further example of creative interaction between Buddhism and Christianity is in the realm of social and politico-economic action. Buddhism, for too long, has tended towards a solipsistic approach, focusing on individual Awakening and ignoring political action. It is salutary to notice that Buddhists like Thich Nhat Hanh or Joanna Macy, along with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, coming to the Western tradition, have brought in an emphasis on 'good works', an area where Christians have been active for many centuries. Whereas there are excellent schools, hospitals and other 'guardian' institutions which were founded by and continue to be run by Christian groups across the ages, catering for all faiths and none, delivering services at the point of need, similar Buddhist institutions are few and far between - indeed, I can only think of hospices or animal sanctuaries. The abolition of slavery, too, is a further example.
From these few examples, you may be able to see why and how I developed, for myself, a 'hermeneutic', a way of reading scriptures and of seeing the world which rejects exclusivity of truth to any one theory or body of faith in favour of another: each brings something to the party. Often, however, I need to sit for a while with a contradiction or a 'knot' before I can penetrate the symbolism because I truly believe that we perceive shadows, as Plato taught in his Cave Myth, and it is up to us to spend the effort needed to understand what casts the shadows, the Reality behind apparent phenomena. In this, I recognise that I am in the mainstream of neither Buddhism, which can be seen as denying an ultimate Reality, and Christianity which ignores dependent origination.
This is already rather long but I hope it gives you some idea of how it all connects for me.
Note:
Years ago I came across a talk given at the World Council of Churches by an IT specialist priest who likened the unfolding universe to a computer program. Such a program, they said, who need to be answering a question and the question is there, in one of the creation stories in Genesis (1:26): "Let us create in our own image". Thus we are part of the (to us) long process by which Compassionate Creativity is achieving that goal. And why? The next (older) story gives us the clue: (2:18) "It is not good to be alone." Inherent in these texts are also the notions of relationship and interbeing.</blockquote>
A lot of what Simon wrote reminded me of what the amiable gentleman at the church said, especially regarding the notions of relationship and interbeing. For example, he said that in talking to me, he saw God. Not that <i>I</i> was God, but that there's something special, something divine, in our interactions with other people. This brought to mind one of the images of hell mentioned by the deacon in one of the church tours earlier in the day — that of being utterly alone — and I couldn't help but be reminded of the Buddha's words to his cousin, Ananda, in <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.002.than.html">SN 45.2</a>:
<blockquote>Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life.</blockquote>
I also found it interesting that Simon mentioned the allegory of the cave from Plato's <i>Republic</i> since it's one of the things that helped motivate me to explore this subject in the first place. (I even <a href="url=http://leavesinthehand.blogspot.com/2010/10/sharing-in-form-of-dhamma.html">wrote a blog post recently</a> comparing what's in the <i>Republic</i> to many of the things the Buddha is recorded as saying in the Pali Canon.)
I'm not planning on converting to Christianity anytime soon; still, I do feel like I'm deepening my own practice and understanding of Buddhism simply by allowing myself to be open to these, for lack of a better word, mysteries. This is not only due to the works of Plato and my recent conversation at Holy Trinity, but to people like David Cooper (<i>God is a Verb</i>), Thomas Merton (<i>Mystics and Zen Masters</i>) and Simon who continually seek to find harmony between spiritual disciplines. Perhaps in time I'll go back to my old, critical ways, but for now, I'm enjoying this newfound appreciation of what devoted people of all religious disciplines have to offer.
I'll give it a read and get back to you.
Thanx bro!
Practice leads me to seek to understand the nature of life and worldly conditions more and more - my own experiences and those described to me by others ... and the questions widen in scope rather than decrease over time.
This story I found online and we have copy on the noticeboard at my local centre ...
Empty the three aspects
A Christian missionary once saw a Buddhist monk bowing
before a Buddha image and asked.
Who are you praying to?
Whereto the monk answered:
Nobody.
The missionary then continued his inquiry by asking:
What are you praying for?
Whereto the monk answered:
Nothing.
Baffled the missionary then turned around to leave the temple,
but he was tapped on the shoulder by the monk who added:
And there is no-body praying.
Sabbe Dhamma Anatta: All phenomena are selfless.
Do not expect all beings to be able understand everything.
http://www.purifymind.com/Story.htm
Christians believe that God is just, but they believe it by faith. There is much in history, in the world today and in my own life that would call that into question.
I couldn't agree more.
However, now that I AM an Orthodox Christian, I am confounded by all of the doctrinal, dogmatic, corporate and ritualistic elements in the religion and seek to "cut to the chase", so to speak. In Orthodoxy, if one wishes to practice hesychasm (Prayer of the Heart, or Invocation of the Name), one needs to have an experienced elder to guide, instruct, and protect you. Well, where do you find these elders in Canada? Haha. You don't, really! So wanting to be engaged in this serious tradition, I feel now that I've kind of wasted three years studying dogmatic formulas and Liturgical chants, and have lost touch with the "inner work" that most needs doing. So I'm straddling both worlds, but often think I've basically tried dressing my Buddhism in Christian clothing...
Sorry. I don't know where I'm going with this. I guess ultimately I agree with Caz Namyaw - from experience - that trying to take two paths at once, or following two masters, is not a good practice. In fact, I would say that it is not only inefficacious, but potentially dangerous to one's psyche. Even if different paths lead up the same mountaintop (a view I've held for a long time, actually), it's all too easy to end up lost part way up the mountain if one doesn't carefully choose their path and stick to it.
What you say makes good sense to me, Qoheleth, and, at the same time, has allowed me to understand how I feel no problem with two, three or more 'paths'. It is, for me, a matter of context, as Saint Paul says: Greek when among the Greeks and Jew among the Jews.
I have a small dipthych in front of my photo of the giver, a 'simple Buddhist monk'. The left-hand wing shows the Theotokos in her pose as "She who shows the Way", pointing beyond Herself to the Christos, ultimate wise compassion. I find no disjunction when I see this icon as another attempt at representing the journey beyond 'self' and can see the Theotokos as a role model.
Thanks, Simon. If we're talking about how symbols from various spiritual traditions can point to the very same, deeper reality, I agree that it's fine, and often very helpful. But I wonder - speaking from a practical point of view, and since we human beings have such a limited lifespan - if it is more skillful to develop along the lines of one path, practice, and/or method? I mean, philosophically, I do consider myself something of a perennialist/universalist. Wisdom is wisdom, compassion is compassion, and insight is insight. But practically speaking, I have been rather undisciplined and have vacillated a great deal. This has caused me some confusion, and frankly, wasted much of my time. The Dalai Lama has said that one can harmoniously be both a Christian and a Buddhist, but a crossroads will eventually present itself if one wants to go deeper. Exact quote is here:
http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes2.html#candb .
But if multiple paths work for you - or anyone else for that matter - who am I to say they can't!? I confess that I am sometimes guilty of black-and-white thinking, and speak mostly from my own experience.:smilec: