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.
I would like to assure you all that I am okay with any and all discussion of Christianity.
Hi, Audrey. My main problem with Christianity in its modern mainstream form is that it seems to have abandoned contemplative practice. It seems as though the desert fathers practiced something like meditation, and there are vestiges of it in the Catholic church, such as the practices of the Trappist monks and the Jesuit practices I already mentioned. But the closest the typical Christian gets to this is some form of intercessory prayer, and I think that's a shame. For me, the contemplative practices of Buddhism have been critical to leading a better life.
The same objection could be raised regarding mainstream Buddhism in Asia, though.
Some other questions...
1. Did some infinite being create the world or has it always been? Is there a "First Cause"?
2. Do Buddhist's focus on the future? Like- Does it matter what happens to you after you die?
Everyone knows the Christian answer to the first question, but does anyone know of any overall Buddhist cosmology? I think the Buddha left this alone and suggested that we should too.
Arguably a mindful Buddhist is focussed on the present moment and sees time as at least a bit of fiction. Time simply is not part of the substratum and is therefore not a problem, save in our minds alone. As such, it is an abstraction from the present and confronts us only when our minds are in a state of anxiety or anguish. In our "best" moments time just seems to fade away into the background where it belongs.
Does it matter to Buddhists what happens after they die? (rephrased)
The contributions I have made on this thread have been looking for the common ground that both Buddhism and Christianity share. I fear, though, that this latter question will not be able to mine much of the metal being sought by me. It is true, however, that both Buddhist and Christian camps are concerned about what happens after death; hence, it does matter. However, there’s a huge difference that I see.
The Buddhist who believes in endless rebirths until nirvana does not feel as rushed to get his house completely in order in one lifetime —as there will follow ample opportunities. It’s kinda like having a big, generous bank account —at least from the much more stingy Christian perspective where all you have is one chance, as it were.
For the Easterner, the Western perspective is just too narrow. Mirabei writes:
I have felt the swaying of the elephant's shoulders;
and now you want me to climb
on a jackass? Try to be serious.
____________________________________ Why Mira Can't Come Back to Her Old House
The colors of the Dark One have penetrated Mira's
body; all the other colors washed out.
Making love with the Dark One and eating little,
those are my pearls and my carnelians.
Meditation beads and the forehead streak,
these are my scarves and my rings.
That's enough feminine wiles for me.
My teacher taught me this.
Approve me or disapprove me: I praise
the Mountain Energy night and day.
I take the path that ecstatic human beings
have taken for centuries.
I don't steal money, I don't hit anyone.
What will you charge me with?
I have felt the swaying of the elephant's shoulders;
and now you want me to climb
on a jackass? Try to be serious.
As you are a scholar, here is a brief reading list:
AITKEN, Robert, & STEINDL-RAST, David The Ground We Share - Everyday Practice, Buddhist and Christian (Shambala, 1996.ISBN 1 57062 219 1)
A dialogue between a Zen roshi and a Chistian monk.
BORG, Marcus (ed.) Jesus & Buddha - The Parallel Sayings (Seastone,
Berkeley, Calif. 2002 ISBN 1-56975-318-0)
Useful reference.
Campbell, Joseph The Masks of God: Oriental Mythology (Penguin/Arkana 1991.)
Not great on Buddhism but a useful introduction to oriental beliefs and myth.
COBB, John B., Jr and IVES, Christopher, Eds The Emptying God - A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation (oop in Europe) (Sri Satguru Publications. 1996. ISBN 81 7030 490 3)
I cannot recommend this book too highly. It is wonderful collection of essays by solid theolgians of various stripes on the subject of Buddhist sunyatta and Christian kenosis.
de MELLO, Anthony, S.J. Sadhana - A Way to God - Christian Exercises in Easter Form (Image Books, Doubleday. 1978 ISBN 0 385 19614 8)
Not Buddhist but a valuable prayer/meditation resource.
KING, Robert H. Thomas Merton and Thich Nhat Hanh - Engaged Spirituality in an Age of Globalisation (Continuum, New York. 2001 ISBN 0 8264 1340 4)
Two great souls in dialogue.
MACKENZIE, Vicki Cave In The Snow (Bloomsbury. 1999 ISBN 0 7475 4389 5)
A wonderful biography of a Buddhist nun of European origin.
Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen The Science of Discworld (Ebury Press, London. 2000)
Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen The Science of Discworld II: The Globe(Ebury Press, London. 2003)
I always recommend these books because I believe that, even if we read theology for choice, it is vital that we examine and understand the questions raised by science. They are fun to read, too.
SOGYAL Rinpoche The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying (Rider. 1992. ISBN 0 7126 7139 0)
A classic. Mahayana.
SCHUMANN, H. W. The Historical Buddha (Arkana. 1989. ISBN 0 14 019203 4)
Dry but instructive.
TEILHARD de CHARDIN, Pierre, S.J. The Phenomenon of Man [Fontana, 1965 (current ISBN 978-0060904951)]
Not Buddhist but vital.
TEMPLE, William Readings In St John’s Gospel (Macmillan, London. 1952
A useful antidote to fundamentalism.
TENZIN GYATSO, 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet The Buddha Nature - Death and Eternal Soul in Buddhism (Bluestar Communications. 1997.ISBN 1 885394 19 5)
TENZIN GYATSO The Good Heart (Rider. 1996.ISBN 0 7126 7275 3)
TENZIN GYATSO, 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet The World of Tibetan Buddhism (Wisdom Books, Boston. 1995. ISBN 0 86171 100 9)
What can I say?
Thich Nhat Hanh The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching (Rider. 1998)
This is my constant companion. TNH outlines Buddhist belief (in the Theravadin tradition) clearly and progressively, with humanity and compassion. If you only read one book, make it this one.
Thich Nhat Hanh and Berrigan, Daniel The Raft Is Not The Shore (Orbis, New York. 2001. First published 1975)
Another dialogue and a good read. Berrigan is always worth a glance.
WATTS, Alan W. The Way of Zen (Penguin. 1957. ISBN 0 14 020547 0)
Another classic but " handle with care".
I could double, treble or quadruple the list. I have left out Suzuki and more Merton.
For your own spiritual growth, may I suggest that you look at the Ten Ox-Herding Pictures. The link is only one of many.
I am available on PM and email and was trained as a 'spiritual director'.
IMO, both Original Sin and karma immemorial provide conceptual models used to provide the reasoning allowing for our feeling of being judged. Whether it be Adam and Eve or a predecessor imputed on the subtlest of continua, both are (to us, at least) as inaccessible as the inside of a black hole. And yet we use these models to explain (or explain away) many perceived results/wrongs.
You and others here have expressed disagreement with a system in which you are responsible for the actions of others, displeasure in reaping the fruits of actions you deem to be "not yours". But why do you think that Adam and Eve are "not you" and that some predecessor on a subtlest continua "is you"?
Adam and Eve, for example, can represent a point on the line of physical continua. Just as you inherited a combination of sperm and egg from your mother and father, you inherited genetic material from a long distant couple. But under the system of karma, we find it hard if not impossible to imagine a mechanism for the transference of karma along a physical continuum. Instead we seem to relegate this action to a subtlest mental continuum.
Why the difference?
Why do we seem to say "the mental continuum is me" and "I am responsible for those actions imputed on the mental continuum, but not those imputed on the physical continuum"?
Am I not correct in assuming that in the karma system, an inherited genetic disease would be interpreted as the obtained fruit of karma?
That disease was carried via the physical medium of genetic material, but we don't allow that as the carrier of the karma. I find this odd. Odd, this preference of ownership of the mental but not the physical continua.
I think I see what you're saying, and I'm sympathetic to certain extent. When comparing the two, I think you're right, they do show a lot of similarities, especially if we look at it from a more heterodox (read 'gnostic') point of view. I also agree that they present two conceptual models of looking at experience, which I think ultimately lay the soteriological foundations for each spiritual path.
That said, I don't think they're identical concepts, although the differences may be subtle. For example, the basic premise behind kamma is that, conventionally speaking, there's a cause and effect relationship between our actions and how they're experienced, and we have some control over that process. By bringing kamma to an end, the mind is said to become free and undisturbed. This means that, in Buddhism, salvation/true happiness can be achieved without any outside agency required.
The idea of original sin, or at least how it's understood by certain theologians, makes it a bit more difficult for Christians to achieve salvation/true happiness without an outside agency, that being God/Jesus. While I hate to make too many generalizations about this, the basic idea is that we're fallen, full of sin, and destined to remain separated from God unless we accept Jesus as our saviour and repent for our sin; sin we're born with and that can't be purify through our own effort, but can only be cleansed by the blood of Jesus, meaning an outside agency is more or less required for salvation.
As for the rest, we're responsible for our volitions, which is the only thing we have some amount of control over, and volition = kamma regardless of how far back we choose to go or how it's stored/carried on, e.g., genetically, storehouse consciousness, morphogeneic field, etc. (That would make a topic in and of itself.) Moreover, while mind is given preeminence in Buddhism, body and mind aren't completely separate or independent of each others. For example, the Buddha saw mentality and materiality (nama-rupa) as mutually sustaining immaterial and material phenomena, using the analogy of two sheaves of reeds leaning against one another to illustrate their relationship (SN 12.67).
Original sin, on the other hand, (not just regular sin, mind you) is something that's presented as being totally out of our control; it's something that we've simply inherited through no fault of our own via the disobedience of two mythical beings/ancestors, and with no hope of release except through the grace of God. To me, this seems closer to the more deterministic straight line theory of causality than the non-linear theory presented by the Buddha, making the results of Adam and Eve's actions inescapable by all of humanity except through some sort of divine intervention (i.e., the crucifixion of Jesus).
As for myself, I don't think the concept of original sin is absurd, but I do think it amounts to guilt by association; one doesn't actually commit the deed, but suffers the consequences/results anyway. I guess the causal framework underlying the concept of kamma just makes more sense to me. It not only giving me responsibility for my actions and the suffering/happiness they cause myself and others, but it also gives me the ability to transcend this causal framework and achieve true happiness by mastering it.
The basic [Christian] idea is that we're fallen, full of sin, and destined to remain separated from God unless we accept Jesus as our saviour and repent for our sin; sin we're born with and that can't be purified through our own effort, but can only be cleansed by the blood of Jesus, meaning an outside agency is more or less required for salvation.
Now, I think that sounds good, with only few exceptions in Christian history— the Cathars being one of them in the not-too-distant past. Howbeit, I think using the word "solely" as was used in posts #19 and #32 above would make the above statement more accurate: "Can't be purified solely through our own effort."
Again, religions are very susceptible to taking on different manifestations in different climes and places, so our generalizations about "Christians" or "Buddhists" need to be looked at carefully sometimes.
As for myself, I don't think the concept of original sin is absurd, but I do think it amounts to guilt by association; one doesn't actually commit the deed, but suffers the consequences/results anyway. I guess the causal framework underlying the concept of kamma just makes more sense to me. It not only giving me responsibility for my actions and the suffering/happiness they cause myself and others, but it also gives me the ability to transcend this causal framework and achieve true happiness by mastering it.
This is my feeling on it as well (though much better articulated..I was really struggling with expressing myself here).
For the record, I don't think it's "wrong" for people to believe in original sin; I was trying to explain my own difficulty with embracing the concept. I'm concerned that this may have been interpreted as an attack on aelleyn's beliefs.:-/
This is my feeling on it as well (though much better articulated..I was really struggling with expressing myself here).
For the record, I don't think it's "wrong" for people to believe in original sin; I was trying to explain my own difficulty with embracing the concept. I'm concerned that this may have been interpreted as an attack on aelleyn's beliefs.:-/
No worries. For what it's worth, I think it's been a good discussion. And even though there's been disagreements, they've been expressed and addressed as civilly and as thoughtfully as I've seen.
'Investigate' (their word, not mine) the Mormon church if you want some real eye openers Audrey. It'll really further your education. They're really nice people. Invite a couple of the young guys over to talk to you and go thru their lessons.
Then if you're really lucky, visit Thailand or Tibet some day and feel the peace and experience all the fruits of the spirit.
Then if you're really lucky, visit Thailand or Tibet some day and feel the peace and experience all the fruits of the spirit.
Alas, you will only find regimented tourists and depressed Tibetans in the Land of Snows today. My neighbour has just come back, very unhappy at what he found. His stories remind me of a visit to the old Soviet Union in the '70s.
As for the Latter Day Saints, they have always seemed very polite when visiting.
"Opinions are like bellybuttons, everyone has one"
-- Dr. Wilkens, History of Ancient Philosophy @ 8:30am
I'm sorry I just had to write that down... as I type I am sitting in my Philosophy class and my professor just said that. It caught my attention. LOL.
Nice. That's a very NICE way of putting it, Audrey! You haven't heard the ugly version? Good. BTW, I really like Christians. They pride themselves in teaching their children that "Our family doesn't do or say things like that." Now, some might say that builds up the ego; but I say that builds up the "We-Go" -Nosotros (to use the Spanish, rather than the Latin) —"We others" ——Anything that fortifies one to act in a respectful way cannot be all bad, I'd say.
I can hear the maracas: Nosotros no somos como los otros son. trans: We are not like the others are. (sc. uncouth or insulting)
I am sincerely searching for an understanding of Buddhism. It is important to me to be knowledgeable of belief systems outside of my own. I don't want to be... one of "those Christians" who thinks that they're better than everyone else or who thinks that their religion is better than everyone's. I want to... help change the views of those right-winged, liberal, evangelical, bible-thumping, so-called Christians that neither of us really care for.
My guru taught that it is OK to subscribe to certain dogmas, but that we must certainly draw the line at dogmatically thinking or preaching. In other words, if a dogma or doctrine helps you paradigmaticallyunderstand something, keep it and go on from there. However, wherever it is not relevant or gets in the way or closes one's mind to possible encounters with other truths, it really needs to be let go of.
Allow me to speak of what I find in my daily life and work, especially among the beautiful young people not yet fallen into the deep ruts of obligations &c. —Everywhere that people are not harried with machines and long lines those doing their jobs have a deep, abiding core of concern and regard for others. —People everywhere really love and enjoy their interactions with others and have a heartfelt desire to help them. It’s just simply the way we’re built, with arms stretching forward spanning the same length as our total body height —to embrace others. And it is the way our minds are “programmed.” —If you care to look, you can even see it in people’s eyes. It’s only the stress and strain that brings out symptoms of counterproductivity, to coin a word perhaps.
Now, Audrey, Buddhism —like any other “religion”— is about encountering the meaning behind life. The beauty of Buddhism for me is the awe which Buddhists hold for each breath, each moment of life. Every breath, every moment is new and fresh. Every face encountered —new or old, known or unknown— IS a fresh insight into who we are. Our bodies are just garments that are wearing out and our minds collect the dust. No matter, BLOWN AWAY.
My main problem with Christianity in its modern mainstream form is that it seems to have abandoned contemplative practice. It seems as though the desert fathers practiced something like meditation, and there are vestiges of it in the Catholic church, such as the practices of the Trappist monks and the Jesuit practices I already mentioned. But the closest the typical Christian gets to this is some form of intercessory prayer, and I think that's a shame. For me, the contemplative practices of Buddhism have been critical to leading a better life.
I agree with you on a certain level. While Christianity has definitely lost some of it's traditional monastic edge, it can still be relatively inwardly focused. I would argue that the "typical Christian" that you talk about is someone who just wants to be saved from the depths of hell. (If I may be so blunt...)
Christianity isn't about asking God to do things for you, it's about being in relationship with Him so that He can help you through your trials. Albeit a lot of people just pray for a good parking spot... I've been known to do it myself. But there are Christians out there who focus on having conversations with God, not just rattling off a 'wish list', but true deep conversations. THAT'S what is important, the RELATIONSHIP aspect.
The Buddhist who believes in endless rebirths until nirvana does not feel as rushed to get his house completely in order in one lifetime —as there will follow ample opportunities. It’s kinda like having a big, generous bank account —at least from the much more stingy Christian perspective where all you have is one chance, as it were.
Doesn't this present the problem that some people might choose to goof off during their first few lives before becoming serious? What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just try again in your next lifetime?
Yeah, I would say that there certainly is a great urgency to become liberated.
After all, you don't know what you will be reborn as, and it would be near impossible to reach enlightenment as a bug. Even if you are reborn as a human, you must first be a baby, learn to walk, etc. And all of this makes it near impossible to work toward liberation.
Ultimately, the urgency is based on a great boredom with samsara. You really don't want to have to do this yet again. So, work on it while you have a respite from conditions which would make the work impossible.
That being said, reaching enlightenment in this lifetime is supposed to be extremely difficult and rare.
The idea of original sin, or at least how it's understood by certain theologians, makes it a bit more difficult for Christians to achieve salvation/true happiness without an outside agency, that being God/Jesus. While I hate to make too many generalizations about this, the basic idea is that we're fallen, full of sin, and destined to remain separated from God unless we accept Jesus as our saviour and repent for our sin; sin we're born with and that can't be purify through our own effort, but can only be cleansed by the blood of Jesus, meaning an outside agency is more or less required for salvation.
Original sin, on the other hand, (not just regular sin, mind you) is something that's presented as being totally out of our control; it's something that we've simply inherited through no fault of our own via the disobedience of two mythical beings/ancestors, and with no hope of release except through the grace of God. To me, this seems closer to the more deterministic straight line theory of causality than the non-linear theory presented by the Buddha, making the results of Adam and Eve's actions inescapable by all of humanity except through some sort of divine intervention (i.e., the crucifixion of Jesus).
As for myself, I don't think the concept of original sin is absurd, but I do think it amounts to guilt by association; one doesn't actually commit the deed, but suffers the consequences/results anyway. I guess the causal framework underlying the concept of kamma just makes more sense to me. It not only giving me responsibility for my actions and the suffering/happiness they cause myself and others, but it also gives me the ability to transcend this causal framework and achieve true happiness by mastering it.
Jason,
You have a very good understanding of original sin and I commend you on it. Not many Christians understand it that well. That being said, I would like to add some things to it.
We both agree that, for Christians, people are born with original sin. I however, do not believe that people are born sinners. If a child dies they are going to go to heaven. (Now, I am not a Mormon, but this may seem like a Mormon concept.) We are not responsible for Adam and Eve's sin. We are entirely responsible for any sin that we ourselves commit though. It is because of original sin that we are more likely to sin ourselves.
I guess I should clarify... people aren't necessarily born with original sin, it's more like they're born into a world where there is original sin. Do you follow me?
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seem like you're saying that one of the reasons you are not a Christian is because you want to be responsible for your own actions and do not want to rely on a savior to help you achieve happiness?
That being said, reaching enlightenment in this lifetime is supposed to be extremely difficult and rare.
See that's what makes me sad... it's like you're never really going to be good enough. You know that you most likely aren't going to reach enlightenment so what's the purpose of even trying?
With Christianity, you know that you're going to spend eternity in heaven with the Lord. Once you commit your life to Christ then you must honor that bond by living a Christ-glorifying life as best you can. If you wander or make a mistake, your salvation is still there as long as you return to your faith. Christ still loves you and He still accepts you.
I think that concept is so beautiful. It's like, no matter what I do the Father will never forsake me as long as I return to Him.
That being said, not turning away from God is something that I strive for. It's not ideal to walk away from God but it happens sometimes. That's where grace comes in. I don't ever plan on turning away from my Savior, but let's be realistic... I'm only human.
Confession time:
I have a HUGE problem with Mormons... That's a whole other topic though. I'd rather not get into it.
I'm working on coming to a common ground with them. But, to me, right now, I would not classify Mormons as Christians...
Chastise me if you'd like but that's how I feel.
Well, Buddhism is about a deep recognition of the seriousness of the matter. This involves the knowledge that there is much work to do, and the conviction to do it.
Adopting a realistic view instead of an idealistic one is important.
Buddhism has its "heavens" too, though, and these can be temporary goals on the way to full enlightenment. Perhaps to encourage those that are discouraged by the amount of work involved.
Adopting a realistic view instead of an idealistic one is important.
Agreed!
You think the same of Catholics? I've often seen fundamentalist Protestants say the same thing of Catholics.
What do you think of apocryphal Christian texts? Have you read any?
No, I do not think the same of Catholics. I feel like Catholics are a lot more structural than most Protestants but that's not something that I have a problem with. Their doctrine is sound.
I've read a few of the apocryphal texts. I think they're extremely interesting, especially the Maccabees. It's interesting to study their history alongside the "biblical" texts.
I'm off to class, I'll be back on later perhaps. I have a large paper to write for my philosophy class tonight.
I guess I should clarify... people aren't necessarily born with original sin, it's more like they're born into a world where there is original sin. Do you follow me?
That's a great way of looking at it. When people say that our karma carries over, I tend to disagree. However, we are born into an environment where the karma of the past has shaped everything. That sort of makes much more sense, from both Christian and Buddhist viewpoints.
The Buddhist who believes in endless rebirths until nirvana does not feel as rushed to get his house completely in order in one lifetime —as there will follow ample opportunities. It’s kinda like having a big, generous bank account —at least from the much more stingy Christian perspective where all you have is one chance, as it were.
I find this statement grossly inacurate. The cycle of endless rebirths is the greatest of all suffering.
It's not that there is a designated number of lives, written down somewhere, stating that by life 1,516,243 you will achieve full enlightenment and liberation and thus turn the wheel of dharma for countless beings. This is delusional and leads to becoming and rebirth ENDLESSLY.
The chances of experiencing sentient life in a world such as this, in a time such as these, with easy access to a library of knowledge pertaining to the life and teachings of a living buddha are EXTREMELY RARE. How blessed are we that we may discuss such things as the triple jewels and the noble truths and the path. The time for developing ones understanidng of such things, and putting that understanding into practice for the sake of all sentient life, is NOW.
There is no such thing as "my last life," and there no such thing as "my next life." These are only words to describe indescribable phenomena and attachment to such concepts will lead to the attachment of the notion of an abiding self, and endless suffering.
The only true comparison that can be made is that in my experience many christians have a far more lax approach to the values of the 8-fold path, such as right speach, right livelihood, right concentration, and spend far more time in devotion and servitude to their personal concept of god. The buddhist path, if anything, is about urgency and mindfulness which must be recognized in this very moment.
I don't mean to be insulting in any regard, and I hope that I have properly articulated myself.
You have a very good understanding of original sin and I commend you on it. Not many Christians understand it that well. That being said, I would like to add some things to it.
We both agree that, for Christians, people are born with original sin. I however, do not believe that people are born sinners. If a child dies they are going to go to heaven. (Now, I am not a Mormon, but this may seem like a Mormon concept.) We are not responsible for Adam and Eve's sin. We are entirely responsible for any sin that we ourselves commit though. It is because of original sin that we are more likely to sin ourselves.
I guess I should clarify... people aren't necessarily born with original sin, it's more like they're born into a world where there is original sin. Do you follow me?
Yes, I follow you. That's mainly why I made the distinction between original sin and regular sin. To be honest, this view of sin makes a lot more sense to me, and I think it's more or less akin to the Buddhist concept of unskillful actions. If I were Christian, I'd more than likely adopt a view of sin similar to this. However, I sincerely doubt that many Christians or more 'orthodox' theologians believe we're born free from sin and able to enter heaven without at least being baptized.
For one thing, many Christians take the position that only Jesus was free from sin; and even if we haven't sinned in the sense of breaking one of the ten commandments, that we're born with the underlying tendency to sin, which I think is closer to the type of original sin you're referring to. Nevertheless, this underlying tendency is what makes sin possible and is what keeps us separated from God.
In Buddhism, there's actually a similar concept in the form of the anusaya, often translated as 'underlying tendencies,' which is closely related to the mental defilements of greed, hatred and delusion. There are seven major ones listed in the Pali Canon: sensual passion, ill-will or resistance, views, uncertainty, conceit, craving for becoming and ignorance. These tendencies are really more like subtle obsessions; although, like original sin, their potentiality is present from birth, they just can't be expressed until one's faculties have matured.
So, in Buddhism, we're not seen as being born with a blank slate either, and we have to work at taming certain things that arise in our minds when the conditions for their arising are present, things that just naturally come with having a mind and body. As such, these things aren't seen as being evil or some sort of punishment for a past wrongdoing, but they are seen as clouding the mind, obscuring its potential, or as some might say, natural, luminosity (AN 1.49-52).
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seem like you're saying that one of the reasons you are not a Christian is because you want to be responsible for your own actions and do not want to rely on a savior to help you achieve happiness?
No, I'm not a Christian because I don't believe in a creator God, nor do I believe that Jesus is literally the son of God/God in the flesh. Consequently, I don't think that Jesus can save me from anything, let alone the consequences/results of my own actions. Moreover, I don't see how believing in Jesus as a personal saviour will help me to achieve true happiness in the here and now, let alone after death.
That said, I do have a soft spot for Jesus as a spiritual teacher, and I think some of the things he's reported as saying in the New Testament are pretty cool—I especially like, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7), the Sermon on the Mount and his many teachings on forgiveness. I've also found a growing appreciation for Christianity in general (although I do tend to lean more towards the heterodox), thanks in part to our dear friend, Simon (e.g., see my fairly recent blog post, "a new found appreciation").
6:46 p.m. : I am ignoring the post prior to Jason's for the moment, as I believe it is really off-topic and moreover not really germane to the general discussion of the thread. I will address it later, as needed, time permitting.
______________________
12:31 a.m. , 18th Nov. 2010
Originally Posted by Nirvana The Buddhist who believes in endless rebirths until nirvana does not feel as rushed to get his house completely in order in one lifetime —as there will follow ample opportunities. It’s kinda like having a big, generous bank account —at least from the much more stingy Christian perspective where all you have is one chance, as it were.
I find this statement grossly inaccurate. The cycle of endless rebirths is the greatest of all suffering.
Nearly any statement taken out of context can be called inaccurate. Indeed, considering the variations in our measuring tools, our various perspectives, and our individual propensities to "thumb the line" differently with our rulers, it's a good thing to take several measurements before we actually commit our blueprints into edifices others will pass through.
The only true comparison that can be made is that in my experience many Christians have a far more lax approach to the values of the 8-fold path, such as right speech, right livelihood, right concentration, and spend far more time in devotion and servitude to their personal concept of god. The buddhist path, if anything, is about urgency and mindfulness which must be recognized in this very moment.
You mean, I think, "the only true contrast..."
The Buddhist path, if anything, is as wide in its variations as is any other. There is no "must" that either pulls or pushes "true" Buddhists.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Jehovah of the ancient Semites was a jealous god and IMO those who call themselves Christians should not be trying to emulate any of his condemnatory characteristics. Buddhists just don't tend to pass moral judgment on others not doing them or others harm, just because certain purity codes are not being upheld. The spiritual seeker, whether Eastern-thinking or Western, accepts others and wishes them well, not eternal torment. This is not a fine distinction. The Eastern wisdom traditions are not judgmental —just discerning of what suits the Taste without investing strong likes or dislikes in these tastes. The Western wisdom tradition, on the other hand, is overrun with legalistic judgments that sometime consign people to eternal hellfire, with no chance of escape.
Originally Posted by Nirvana:
The Buddhist who believes in endless rebirths until nirvana does not feel as rushed to get his house completely in order in one lifetime —as there will follow ample opportunities. It’s kinda like having a big, generous bank account —at least from the much more stingy Christian perspective where all you have is one chance, as it were.
Doesn't this present the problem that some people might choose to goof off during their first few lives before becoming serious? What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just try again in your next lifetime?
Well for that matter, what’s the point of being good all the time, either, when there’s always the possibility that you might really mess up on some rainy day and commit the sin that will land you in eternal hellfire? —It’s not just Buddhism, but the entire Eastern mindset that is spacious, non-judgmental, and essentially generous. I’ve seen lots of discussion of original sin in this thread. That is based on an old judgmental and punishing Jehovah who was essentially a stingy patriarchal deity. One life, one chance, sorry!
I think using terms from finance in everyday life can help put these matters into greater perspective. What truly loving parents, upon discovering that their child had spent his whole week’s allowance on candy to indulge his selfish desires would then and there stop giving him any further allowances? The thing is, the child is given opportunities to “come up” and learn. Nothing is wasted in the universe at all, things are recycled and either “come up” or “go down.” Nothing stays the same for long.
Well, to say that nothing is wasted in life would not be a true statement if things just came to a dead-end stop with no ensuing consequences. If one were to believe that goofing around a little was just wasting time and nothing else, what could I say?
Notwithstanding all these thoughts about consigning “goof-offs” to some dung-hill gehenna or fiery Hell, where would we be without extravagance, lavishness, and prodigousness? I mean, that’s what nature is: Behold the great multitude of seeds from the cottonwood tree. Behold the superabundant production of hormones —and enzymes and other proteins in the animal bodies, most of which go unused, being produced “just in case.” Behold the exultation of green plants in their gluttony for water. —But only the human being should be punished for this “selfishness,” as it is “fully sentient and rational.”
No, it's more the case that the concept of karma mirrors the way the universe really exists, at least physically, than does the concept of coming to the ground where you can atone for "original sin." The former is generous and free, the later stingy and forever bound.
I guess I should clarify... people aren't necessarily born with original sin, it's more like they're born into a world where there is original sin.
Audrey, I am only using your post, not addressing your point here —as this issue of “Karma vs. Original Sin” has become one of the main quandaries of this thread of yours.
How do I address this point?
Parents are providers (Lat. parens) and the God of the Christians is Loving. Therefore, in the true spirit of the New Testament, original sin does not apply. Indeed, the Christian Gospel is about the forgiven-ess of sin. Sin is separation as the “original sin” was separation from the Garden of Eden.
St. Augustine was no mystic, really he wasn’t. In the East only Jesus is The Doctor (Latin, “Teacher”) of the Church and is traditionally shown in iconography always holding “the Book.” In the West, something strange happened and we have all these “saints” set up on pedestals. Of course, tendencies tend to bend and flow, but this is the basic difference between East and West.
That is exactly why I always liked gnosticism, Nirvana! Things make a lot more sense when you realize Jehovah is a stingy, jealous demiurge that 1) thought he was the only god and 2) created human beings to be his slaves.
Thank Sophia that she sent Jesus (pistis), first, in the form of a snake to let us eat of one tree, and second, as the actual embodiment of the second tree, so that we could shake off the chains of this prison.
Doesn't this present the problem that some people might choose to goof off during their first few lives before becoming serious? What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just try again in your next lifetime?
Dukkha.
And that means more than just suffering. It also is the unsatisfactory nature of conditioned existence. Dukkha can also mean something along the lines of stress and anxiety. Pain, sorrow, lamentation, grief and the whole 9 yards.
And sure, there's fire and brimstone and 31 planes of existence in the Buddhist universe. There's also bliss realms and heaven realms if you believe that stuff. If anything, it's not that we don't have your metaphysical trappings, it's that we have a lot more than just your metaphysical trappings.
What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just try again in your next lifetime?
What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just repent on your death bed?
If at all, 'Heaven' is to be realized in the here and now. The kingdom is within us and around us, right? Laid out before our eyes but none see it? What if the place that Jesus is preparing you for is not after death? What if you die and miss the entire point of what that 2000 year old Reform Jewish Rabbi was trying to say?
Fortunately, many of us hold to Original Blessing. The notion of 'Original Sin' is so late in arriving in Christianity as a way of explaining what the Buddhist calls dukkha,
Audrey: do you know the Gospel of Thomas? If not, may I recommend it? I hold to the view that it is among the earliest collections of 'Sayings', probably dating from before the end of the first century, even, possibly, from before the fall of Jerusalem which so infects the Synoptics.
My own hermeneutic is based on the statement, by Jesus, that none of those committed to him (i.e. all of us and the world about us) can be lost. If he is the "Saviour of the World", it then appear blasphemous to me to suggest that anyone or anything can be 'cast out'. It makes a liar of Jesus. That the churches insist on their rules of inclusion and exclusion is an historical invention, imported for the purpose of patriarchal and social control, concentrating salvation in the hands of the minority. He, however, has put down the mighty from their seats.
Even Saint Paul cannot hide the fact that we are 'co-heirs' and not slaves.
In Buddhism, there's... a similar concept [to Original Sin, called] anusaya, often translated as 'underlying tendencies,' which is closely related to the mental defilements of greed, hatred and delusion. There seven major ones listed in the Pali Canon: sensual passion, ill-will or resistance, views, uncertainty, conceit, craving for becoming and ignorance. These tendencies are really more like subtle obsessions; although, like original sin, their potentiality is present from birth, they just can't be expressed until one's faculties have matured.
So, in Buddhism, we're not seen as being born with a blank slate either, and we have to work at taming certain things that arise in our minds when the conditions for their arising are present, things that just naturally come with having a mind and body. As such, these things aren't seen as being evil or some sort of punishment for a past wrongdoing, but they are seen as clouding the mind, obscuring its potential, or as some might say, natural, luminosity (AN 1.49-52).
WOW, Jason!
I think it’s the dialogue that matters here and I think most of us come here for that in order to grow in understanding. I consider myself both Christian and Buddhist, because I am drawn to the irrefutable truth of the latter and was born into the former. That which I am born into is my dharma and it is also my oldest and dearest Friend.
I believe that discussions of these matters is essential to the future harmony of the world. As many have pointed out in the past, religions are like languages. They have different concepts and different grammatical constructs because they emanated, at least to some degree, from peoples living in places far off from each other. Now that the world is coming together, we must dig for the tattered fragments of the mother tongue, and try our best to piece them together in the quilt which is needed to embrace each other properly, with dignity and warmth.
You know in the Gita when Arjuna is all like, "I don't want to kills my brothers and sisters and cousins and uncles and stuff."
And then Krishna pops up and says, "Yo! Like you totally got to, though. It's like your dharma, man. I mean sheeut your name means 'archer', for Brahman's sake!"
@upalabhava
Dharma means a lot of things in Sanskrit. I dunno about damma.
All's I knows is dat dharma primarily means Law or Rule and law is basically convention. Christianity is the convention in which I was born and will remain most conversant in, with the prompting of my guru. It's the red-letter Bible (Words of Jesus) and the resurrected Jesus of the gnostic traditions that resonate with me. However, to whatever extent I can be remade a Buddhist, that is the direction I am flowing.
I need not apologize for what I am. I am peddling as fast I can, but I see lights all around and just a few Beacons that stand, really, not that far apart.
Anyhow, I don't want to take this thread off topic by dissenting with any view. My point in my last post is that listening is more important than speaking. If we react too soon, as I perhaps have done, and not allow time and space for the other person's view to sink in, I'm afraid we're not communicating, but only exchanging words.
The questions Audrey has asked here, along with our responses, her feedback, and our responses to that have been worthwhile, I think. To me, the most important thing to achieve here is getting everybody to think just a little bit more out of the box. Let me be the first to admit that I am not convinced yet of anything I said above except those times when I spoke of my affection for both Jesus and Buddha.
Hello Audrey,
It would seem that you recieved many good and thought provoking replys. I would like to answer your questions to the best of my understanding:
1. Would you agree that ignorance requires a teacher, much like sin requires a savior? :
Ignorance is born from delusion; this delusion is the concept that I am a solid, fixed unchangeing entity that is separate from everything else. Ignorance requires wisdom; to know that I don't inherently exist and to not identify all manner of events as if they related to me personally. To begin to realize this body, these preceptions, these feeling, mental formations and this very conscious is not mine. They are not self, nor are they permenant. This is the beginning of wisdom. My teacher is Buddha. Sin is predicated on a subjective idea of good and bad, this too is not fixed. Is it God's concept of sin?
2. What is the source of the human predicament? (Christians would say it is sin, what would Buddhists say? Or is the question completely irrelevant for a Buddhist?)
What is the human predicament exactly? Death? Suffering? illness? Becoming old? Or is it the desire to have things (especially good things) stay fixed, permanent and unending when nothing in life (or this universe is) and suffering as a result. We suffer because our concepts and desires don't comport with reality.
3. What is the purpose for your life?
There is no "planned" purpose. I could be a raging drunk that beats my children and a creates much suffering for myself or those around me or I could choose that which is skillful and results in peace, joy and wellbeing. It is up to me; the seeds that I plant by my thoughts, my words or my deeds will bear fruit, and I will inherit that fruit. I am accountable and responsible for all that I do, say or think. The purpose of my life is very simple, do I want joy or suffering. Do I take refuge in the Triple Gem or in my own ego-clinging.
4. Do you have a hope for the future? (Will the world get better?)
This life is glorious, profound and auspicious! People and this very life are no different than they were since the dawn of humanity. We create our own suffering by investing in delusion. We always have. Will the world be better than what? Comparisons are odious. What is there to compare it to? Memory, books, ideas? All these things are not the world, as the old saying goes; the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.
5. Why is there evil in the world? (Theodicy!)
Is there evil in the world? Or do people simply make unwise, unskillful or even harmful choices that result in suffering?
6. I was reading about the age of Mappo and that it is just basically the time we are in now that has been tied down with bad karma... can you explain this to me?
I don't know this idea. I make my own karma, by my thoughts, my words and my deeds, be they skillful or unskillful.
7. If you had been born during the shobo period, would your life have been different? (I guess what I'm getting at is, Were you just born at the wrong time? Is that why you can't reach enlightenment on your own?)
I don't know this idea either. To reach or not reach enlightenment is not a concern of mine. Living mindfully day to day, compassion and loving kindness is my aspiration. I really have only one goal; to live and to die without regret.
With much Metta,
Todd
I'm working on coming to a common ground with them. But, to me, right now, I would not classify Mormons as Christians...
Under the Banner of Heaven is not exactly a Mormon-friendly book, being primarily concerned with violent Mormon fundamentalists. But I came away from it with a very positive impression of Joseph Smith's later years. He seemed like a true saint. (The book is also a cracking good read.)
Yeah, I would say that there certainly is a great urgency to become liberated.
After all, you don't know what you will be reborn as, and it would be near impossible to reach enlightenment as a bug. Even if you are reborn as a human, you must first be a baby, learn to walk, etc. And all of this makes it near impossible to work toward liberation.
Ultimately, the urgency is based on a great boredom with samsara. You really don't want to have to do this yet again. So, work on it while you have a respite from conditions which would make the work impossible.
That being said, reaching enlightenment in this lifetime is supposed to be extremely difficult and rare.
This is a major difference between the Christian understanding of the underpinnings of the universe and its basic structure and the traditional Buddhist. The Christian Theology seeks eternal life in communion with the divine, and would be willing to walk through Hell a thousand times for a Heavenly Cause. As such, samsara is not the ultimate reality, as the Christian does not see himself rolling through time endlessly evolving and devolving, desperately in need of a rest. No, the Christian rests in God. Indeed, the Christian spiritual teachings teach that the Christian may even rest in God in this life, consigning all cares in prayer to the Lord.
On the other hand, for a bodhisattva, seeking full enlightenment in any lifetime may ultimately be seen as the height of selfishness. Better just to get a very good glimpse of the land of Shangri-La, as it were, commit it to memory, and then go about spreading the news to others.
There is neither need for great urgency on behalf of the Buddhist nor any possible incentive to "goof off,"either.
The ground of all being is at once both substance and mere waves of energy. Whether that ground be the solid rock out of which Christians see themselves to be hewn or the ground of nonbeing which the Buddhists favor, we all inhabit the same consciousness. Whether you see basic reality as particles or as waves, physicists have shown that it's your perspective that makes all the difference —not the "things-in-themselves." The ground of Being is Nonbeing. You cannot really know what light is until you are deprived of it in darkness. You think the earth is solid ground, until the earthquake lurches up from hidden depths.
Originally Posted by aellyn:
Doesn't this present the problem that some people might choose to goof off during their first few lives before becoming serious? What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just try again in your next lifetime?
Originally Posted by aellyn:
Doesn't this present the problem that some people might choose to goof off during their first few lives before becoming serious? What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just try again in your next lifetime?
Thanks, not1not2, for this "answer" to Audrey's question. Much more apt than mine!
Dunno about that, but thanks. My main point is that you can find these sorts of issues in ANY tradition. But where you find serious seekers, you find practice. While hell, etc appeals to the ego-driven more than the whole 'being in the moment' or 'virtue is its own reward' message, that doesn't mean that should be the metric to measure religions by.
Q: Doesn't this present the problem that some people might choose to goof off during their first few lives before becoming serious? What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just try again in your next lifetime?
A:-1 What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just repent on your death bed?
A:-2 Precisely the same point as trying to be a good person if there is no afterlife to 'reward' you.
I know it's quite late in the UK, esteemed Pilgrim, but I don't see any "precise" parallel between the two, at all.
From both the experiential and the moral points of view, we do the good and right things just because they are the good and the right things to do. The good things we do for the experience of joy and communion we derive from so doing, and we do the right things because these are the things it would pain us not to do.
Q: Doesn't this present the problem that some people might choose to goof off during their first few lives before becoming serious? What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just try again in your next lifetime?
A:-2 Precisely the same point as trying to be a good person if there is no afterlife to 'reward' you.
I know it's quite late in the UK, esteemed Pilgrim, but I don't see any "precise" parallel between the two, at all.
From both the experiential and the moral points of view, we do the good and right things just because they are the good and the right things to do. The good things we do for the experience of joy and communion we derive from so doing, and we do the right things because these are the things it would pain us not to do.
Some people do good things because they feel good as a result but there are also those who do bad things and feel good as a result.
Some people do good things and feel bad as result.
These are the paradoxes of our lives and, in my Weltanschauung, the paradox of a suffering God. (cf. Moltmann)
[It is actually "early" over here, Nirvy my dear friend. Oh, the joys of insomnia enlivened by the Net! Grace abounds.]
Some people do good things because they feel good as a result but there are also those who do bad things and feel good as a result.
Some people do good things and feel bad as result.
That's not what I was trying to say. Regarding the experiential, I was not saying that people feel good only as a result of doing good. My claim was that people feel pleasure and joy and purpose and fulfillment in doing good things while they are doing them and because they're doing them. In other words, the good they can do is what motivates them. What feelings come afterwards are not pertinent to my point at all. I am very familiar with depressed people in the nursing home —depressed chiefly because they cannot be out there doing the good they live for.
I won't even touch on the moral argument in this post, not only because space does not permit it but it's an entire other dimension I'll address later, if it still seems pertinent, time permitting. I know of no reason, though, why a thread on salvation should be barred from homing in on the ethical.
Now, as to people doing bad things and feeling good as a result —yes, that does happen. Doing bad things to "people who deserve it" (taking the law into one's own hands, as it were) is something perhaps we all have done in minor ways along our various paths. Short-term it may feel good, but in the long-run I think most people would regret these acts and call them mistakes. Indeed, in times of sickness, these would be the spectres that might come back to haunt them. At that point it's completely beside the point whether what they did was bad or just "a little wrong." It just feels bad and it makes the people feel like they're bad people.
- - - - - -
And true, there are those who feel good during the commission of bad deeds, as it may give a power rush or even gratify an appetite for power in them. And although this ability would be useful on places such as the battlefield, it may well be that all these deeds will come back to haunt people later in life. In that case their "bad deeds" will not leave them "feeling good as a result." We've heard of cases such as a soldier slitting the throat of any enemy combatant in wartime haunting him to his grave.
The thing is, people are beautiful creatures, fixed halfway between heaven and earth, their dreams floating on clouds and their love and affection for others pulling them towards being more gracious and giving of themselves. People are pulled to the good and they really want to do well. Really, none of these propositions we've been looking at lately will make much sense to you when you're on your deathbed. They're all really just talk and theory, but that's not the kind of world we inhabit. We live in a world chock-full of Beautiful People, some of which sometimes get things all mussed up for a while.
Now when people do good things or even the right thing and feel bad as a result, I'd hope that would be because things turned out badly as a result of their doings. However, their intentions, though misguided or not suitable, were not bad. There are other cases, too, of people doing good things or the right things feeling bad as a result because their lives changed or because they were just miserable people who only did the good by accident. Theoretically you could construct tens of scenarios, I imagine. However, our purpose on this thread is some sort of Christian-Buddhist dialogue, and perhaps we shouldn't take these propositions too seriously.
Oh Moltmann... just read Jesus Christ for Today's World...
In his The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, Thich Nhat Hanh says
Without suffering, you cannot grow. Without suffering, you cannot get the peace and joy you deserve. Please don't run away from your suffering. Embrace it and cherish it. Go to the Buddha, sit with him, and show him your pain. He will look at you with loving-kindness, compassion and mindfulness, and show you ways to embrace your suffering and look deeply into it. With understanding and compassion, you will be able to heal the wounds in your heart, and the wounds in the world. The Buddha called suffering a Holy Truth, because our suffering has the capacity of showing us the path to liberation. Embrace your suffering and let it reveal to you the way to peace.
You may like to compare this with Moltmann's wonderful essay The Crucified God. A long read but a vital one for any modern Christian theology student:
The God of success and the apathetic man of action completely contradict what we find at the core of Christianity: the suffering God and the loving, vulnerable man. On the other hand, the crucified God contradicts the God of success and his idol-worshippers all the more totally. He contradicts the officially optimistic society. He also contradicts the revolutionary activism of the sons of the old establishment. 'The old rugged cross' contradicts the old and the new triumphal theology (theologia gloria) which we produce in the churches in order to keep pace with the transformations of an activistic and rapidly changing society.
Could it be that “Moltmann's wonderful essay” which you gave links to in posts 94 and 97 above seemed a little too intellectual and not likely to mold minds and hearts in the big, bad world?
from the concluding paragraphs of the essay:
Our officially optimistic society believes in the idols of action and success. Through their compulsive inhumanity, they lead many persons into apathy and despair. The churches in this society often function as nothing more than religious establishments, care-takers for the idols and laws of this society. If this society is to turn itself toward humanity, the churches must become Christian. They must destroy the idols of action and apathy, of success and anxiety; proclaim the human, the suffering, the crucified God; and learn to live in his situation. They must discover the meaning of suffering and sorrow, and spread abroad the spirit of compassion, sympathy, and love, They must confront successful and despairing man with the truth of the cross in his situation, so that man may become a compassionate, joyous, and thereby free being.
The Jesus of history and the Jesus of the Church has always been an other-wordly figure who both partook of and taught self-sacrificing love. And surely there are many saints in the churches that exemplify these values in their lives —and many pastors and others who teach these values. This is nothing new.
HOWEVER, the churches are always tapping into the popular culture to “keep relevant” to the cultural idols of fame, action, and image. The churches are in the “money-making” business, too. Indeed, on today’s "religious television" such channels as INSP largely sport preachers who talk of nothing but money, wealth, and personal fortune and prestige. They urge people to give them a thousand dollar “seed” that will yield them a thousand-fold. Don’t have the cash? Put it on your credit card? Already in debt? Well, if you spend your money on other things, there’s no dividend, but if you plant a “seed,” then you will be rewarded (by your Father in Heaven who knows every hair on your head).
Look at the churches turning to simpy, sentimental music to use at Divine Service. No matter how excellent the old tried-and-true stuff was, you gotta appeal to the popular culture to get the folks in. No, the churches are bodies that spend 88% of their time and money just keeping the show of playing church going.
The article begins by stating:
As Sidney Hook observes, western society is an officially optimistic society. The built-in values of our life and our system condemn us to activity, success, profit, and progress. If we experience failure, if we are frustrated, then we move on to another place, "where the action is."
There is something wrong with the human race. We all fall short of perfection.
Falling short of perfection is not a “ground" that is “in common” with both Buddhism and Christianity. The Buddha never stipulated that people were incapable of reaching perfection in this lifetime.
On the other hand, there is a common ground of dialogue about the human condition that both Buddhists and Christians agree on. Selfishness and self-seeking is a problem that both Buddhism and Christianity see as an underlying cause for unhappiness and sin. If you ask me, though, I think that Buddhism makes a frontal assault on problems both created by this selfishness and ones that compound it. Christianity, in comparison, tends to obfuscate the real problems in our lives by distracting us with a lot of fables. These fables, though pretty on some levels, unfortunately are no longer sophisticated enough for many to take seriously. These fables are even seen by many as a key element, and so the overall situation really is as hopeless as a sinking ship. It is to the religions of Mother India that serious people will in future turn for guidance.
Original sin, much alluded to in this thread as perhaps a Christian parallel to karma, is a subjectivistic conception, based on a narrow mythical interpretation of the gospels. Christians need not be as narrow as the four great neurotics of Christianity were. After all, Jesus had his own message. How others presented it afterwards is not necessarily right, just because their party seems to have won the day in the West. In the East, Christians do not see things in such stark terms, but gravitate to the more Hellenistic Origen. In the more mystical Eastern Orthodox churches, the human being is not a slave to a willful deity, but rather a co-creator with him. To be saved, man must join his being together with God in a "synergeia" whereby his entire being, including his will, effort, and desire, are perfectly conformed with, and united to, the divine. The ultimate goal of the Orthodox Christian is to achieve theosis (deification), or Union with God, not merely to be able to gaze on the divine presence in eternal bliss. Dualism was all along only in the mind that set its interests off, apart from the whole.
In the West, on the other hand, the four neurotics (St. Paul, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin) heavily stressed the separateness of man from God. If grace is free and undeserved, they all ask, then why are not all free —unless predestination of God's elect is at play? Such a view is very dualistic and just cannot see any real underlying unity between humanity and the divine. Salvation in the West is seen as being saved from damnation, whereas Damnation in the East is seen as being forever deprived of union with the divine.
Comments
Hi, Audrey. My main problem with Christianity in its modern mainstream form is that it seems to have abandoned contemplative practice. It seems as though the desert fathers practiced something like meditation, and there are vestiges of it in the Catholic church, such as the practices of the Trappist monks and the Jesuit practices I already mentioned. But the closest the typical Christian gets to this is some form of intercessory prayer, and I think that's a shame. For me, the contemplative practices of Buddhism have been critical to leading a better life.
The same objection could be raised regarding mainstream Buddhism in Asia, though.
Everyone knows the Christian answer to the first question, but does anyone know of any overall Buddhist cosmology? I think the Buddha left this alone and suggested that we should too.
Arguably a mindful Buddhist is focussed on the present moment and sees time as at least a bit of fiction. Time simply is not part of the substratum and is therefore not a problem, save in our minds alone. As such, it is an abstraction from the present and confronts us only when our minds are in a state of anxiety or anguish. In our "best" moments time just seems to fade away into the background where it belongs.
Does it matter to Buddhists what happens after they die? (rephrased)
The contributions I have made on this thread have been looking for the common ground that both Buddhism and Christianity share. I fear, though, that this latter question will not be able to mine much of the metal being sought by me. It is true, however, that both Buddhist and Christian camps are concerned about what happens after death; hence, it does matter. However, there’s a huge difference that I see.
The Buddhist who believes in endless rebirths until nirvana does not feel as rushed to get his house completely in order in one lifetime —as there will follow ample opportunities. It’s kinda like having a big, generous bank account —at least from the much more stingy Christian perspective where all you have is one chance, as it were.
For the Easterner, the Western perspective is just too narrow. Mirabei writes:
and now you want me to climb
on a jackass? Try to be serious.
____________________________________
Why Mira Can't Come Back to Her Old House
body; all the other colors washed out.
Making love with the Dark One and eating little,
those are my pearls and my carnelians.
Meditation beads and the forehead streak,
these are my scarves and my rings.
That's enough feminine wiles for me.
My teacher taught me this.
Approve me or disapprove me: I praise
the Mountain Energy night and day.
I take the path that ecstatic human beings
have taken for centuries.
I don't steal money, I don't hit anyone.
What will you charge me with?
I have felt the swaying of the elephant's shoulders;
and now you want me to climb
on a jackass? Try to be serious.
As you are a scholar, here is a brief reading list:
AITKEN, Robert, & STEINDL-RAST, David The Ground We Share - Everyday Practice, Buddhist and Christian (Shambala, 1996.ISBN 1 57062 219 1)
A dialogue between a Zen roshi and a Chistian monk.
BORG, Marcus (ed.) Jesus & Buddha - The Parallel Sayings (Seastone,
Berkeley, Calif. 2002 ISBN 1-56975-318-0)
Useful reference.
Campbell, Joseph The Masks of God: Oriental Mythology (Penguin/Arkana 1991.)
Not great on Buddhism but a useful introduction to oriental beliefs and myth.
COBB, John B., Jr and IVES, Christopher, Eds The Emptying God - A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation (oop in Europe) (Sri Satguru Publications. 1996. ISBN 81 7030 490 3)
I cannot recommend this book too highly. It is wonderful collection of essays by solid theolgians of various stripes on the subject of Buddhist sunyatta and Christian kenosis.
de MELLO, Anthony, S.J. Sadhana - A Way to God - Christian Exercises in Easter Form (Image Books, Doubleday. 1978 ISBN 0 385 19614 8)
Not Buddhist but a valuable prayer/meditation resource.
KING, Robert H. Thomas Merton and Thich Nhat Hanh - Engaged Spirituality in an Age of Globalisation (Continuum, New York. 2001 ISBN 0 8264 1340 4)
Two great souls in dialogue.
MACKENZIE, Vicki Cave In The Snow (Bloomsbury. 1999 ISBN 0 7475 4389 5)
A wonderful biography of a Buddhist nun of European origin.
Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen The Science of Discworld (Ebury Press, London. 2000)
Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen The Science of Discworld II: The Globe(Ebury Press, London. 2003)
I always recommend these books because I believe that, even if we read theology for choice, it is vital that we examine and understand the questions raised by science. They are fun to read, too.
SOGYAL Rinpoche The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying (Rider. 1992. ISBN 0 7126 7139 0)
A classic. Mahayana.
SCHUMANN, H. W. The Historical Buddha (Arkana. 1989. ISBN 0 14 019203 4)
Dry but instructive.
TEILHARD de CHARDIN, Pierre, S.J. The Phenomenon of Man [Fontana, 1965 (current ISBN 978-0060904951)]
Not Buddhist but vital.
TEMPLE, William Readings In St John’s Gospel (Macmillan, London. 1952
A useful antidote to fundamentalism.
TENZIN GYATSO, 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet The Buddha Nature - Death and Eternal Soul in Buddhism (Bluestar Communications. 1997.ISBN 1 885394 19 5)
TENZIN GYATSO The Good Heart (Rider. 1996.ISBN 0 7126 7275 3)
TENZIN GYATSO, 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet The World of Tibetan Buddhism (Wisdom Books, Boston. 1995. ISBN 0 86171 100 9)
What can I say?
Thich Nhat Hanh The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching (Rider. 1998)
This is my constant companion. TNH outlines Buddhist belief (in the Theravadin tradition) clearly and progressively, with humanity and compassion. If you only read one book, make it this one.
Thich Nhat Hanh and Berrigan, Daniel The Raft Is Not The Shore (Orbis, New York. 2001. First published 1975)
Another dialogue and a good read. Berrigan is always worth a glance.
WATTS, Alan W. The Way of Zen (Penguin. 1957. ISBN 0 14 020547 0)
Another classic but " handle with care".
I could double, treble or quadruple the list. I have left out Suzuki and more Merton.
For your own spiritual growth, may I suggest that you look at the Ten Ox-Herding Pictures. The link is only one of many.
I am available on PM and email and was trained as a 'spiritual director'.
I think I see what you're saying, and I'm sympathetic to certain extent. When comparing the two, I think you're right, they do show a lot of similarities, especially if we look at it from a more heterodox (read 'gnostic') point of view. I also agree that they present two conceptual models of looking at experience, which I think ultimately lay the soteriological foundations for each spiritual path.
That said, I don't think they're identical concepts, although the differences may be subtle. For example, the basic premise behind kamma is that, conventionally speaking, there's a cause and effect relationship between our actions and how they're experienced, and we have some control over that process. By bringing kamma to an end, the mind is said to become free and undisturbed. This means that, in Buddhism, salvation/true happiness can be achieved without any outside agency required.
The idea of original sin, or at least how it's understood by certain theologians, makes it a bit more difficult for Christians to achieve salvation/true happiness without an outside agency, that being God/Jesus. While I hate to make too many generalizations about this, the basic idea is that we're fallen, full of sin, and destined to remain separated from God unless we accept Jesus as our saviour and repent for our sin; sin we're born with and that can't be purify through our own effort, but can only be cleansed by the blood of Jesus, meaning an outside agency is more or less required for salvation.
As for the rest, we're responsible for our volitions, which is the only thing we have some amount of control over, and volition = kamma regardless of how far back we choose to go or how it's stored/carried on, e.g., genetically, storehouse consciousness, morphogeneic field, etc. (That would make a topic in and of itself.) Moreover, while mind is given preeminence in Buddhism, body and mind aren't completely separate or independent of each others. For example, the Buddha saw mentality and materiality (nama-rupa) as mutually sustaining immaterial and material phenomena, using the analogy of two sheaves of reeds leaning against one another to illustrate their relationship (SN 12.67).
Original sin, on the other hand, (not just regular sin, mind you) is something that's presented as being totally out of our control; it's something that we've simply inherited through no fault of our own via the disobedience of two mythical beings/ancestors, and with no hope of release except through the grace of God. To me, this seems closer to the more deterministic straight line theory of causality than the non-linear theory presented by the Buddha, making the results of Adam and Eve's actions inescapable by all of humanity except through some sort of divine intervention (i.e., the crucifixion of Jesus).
As for myself, I don't think the concept of original sin is absurd, but I do think it amounts to guilt by association; one doesn't actually commit the deed, but suffers the consequences/results anyway. I guess the causal framework underlying the concept of kamma just makes more sense to me. It not only giving me responsibility for my actions and the suffering/happiness they cause myself and others, but it also gives me the ability to transcend this causal framework and achieve true happiness by mastering it.
Now, I think that sounds good, with only few exceptions in Christian history— the Cathars being one of them in the not-too-distant past. Howbeit, I think using the word "solely" as was used in posts #19 and #32 above would make the above statement more accurate: "Can't be purified solely through our own effort."
Again, religions are very susceptible to taking on different manifestations in different climes and places, so our generalizations about "Christians" or "Buddhists" need to be looked at carefully sometimes.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=elaine+pagels&x=0&y=0
and Thich Nhat Hanh to the list:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=thich+nhat+hanh+jesus&x=0&y=0
This is my feeling on it as well (though much better articulated..I was really struggling with expressing myself here).
For the record, I don't think it's "wrong" for people to believe in original sin; I was trying to explain my own difficulty with embracing the concept. I'm concerned that this may have been interpreted as an attack on aelleyn's beliefs.:-/
No worries. For what it's worth, I think it's been a good discussion. And even though there's been disagreements, they've been expressed and addressed as civilly and as thoughtfully as I've seen.
Then if you're really lucky, visit Thailand or Tibet some day and feel the peace and experience all the fruits of the spirit.
Alas, you will only find regimented tourists and depressed Tibetans in the Land of Snows today. My neighbour has just come back, very unhappy at what he found. His stories remind me of a visit to the old Soviet Union in the '70s.
As for the Latter Day Saints, they have always seemed very polite when visiting.
I can hear the maracas: Nosotros no somos como los otros son.
trans: We are not like the others are. (sc. uncouth or insulting)
My guru taught that it is OK to subscribe to certain dogmas, but that we must certainly draw the line at dogmatically thinking or preaching. In other words, if a dogma or doctrine helps you paradigmatically understand something, keep it and go on from there. However, wherever it is not relevant or gets in the way or closes one's mind to possible encounters with other truths, it really needs to be let go of.
Allow me to speak of what I find in my daily life and work, especially among the beautiful young people not yet fallen into the deep ruts of obligations &c. —Everywhere that people are not harried with machines and long lines those doing their jobs have a deep, abiding core of concern and regard for others. —People everywhere really love and enjoy their interactions with others and have a heartfelt desire to help them. It’s just simply the way we’re built, with arms stretching forward spanning the same length as our total body height —to embrace others. And it is the way our minds are “programmed.” —If you care to look, you can even see it in people’s eyes. It’s only the stress and strain that brings out symptoms of counterproductivity, to coin a word perhaps.
Now, Audrey, Buddhism —like any other “religion”— is about encountering the meaning behind life. The beauty of Buddhism for me is the awe which Buddhists hold for each breath, each moment of life. Every breath, every moment is new and fresh. Every face encountered —new or old, known or unknown— IS a fresh insight into who we are. Our bodies are just garments that are wearing out and our minds collect the dust. No matter, BLOWN AWAY.
I agree with you on a certain level. While Christianity has definitely lost some of it's traditional monastic edge, it can still be relatively inwardly focused. I would argue that the "typical Christian" that you talk about is someone who just wants to be saved from the depths of hell. (If I may be so blunt...)
Christianity isn't about asking God to do things for you, it's about being in relationship with Him so that He can help you through your trials. Albeit a lot of people just pray for a good parking spot... I've been known to do it myself. But there are Christians out there who focus on having conversations with God, not just rattling off a 'wish list', but true deep conversations. THAT'S what is important, the RELATIONSHIP aspect.
Doesn't this present the problem that some people might choose to goof off during their first few lives before becoming serious? What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just try again in your next lifetime?
After all, you don't know what you will be reborn as, and it would be near impossible to reach enlightenment as a bug. Even if you are reborn as a human, you must first be a baby, learn to walk, etc. And all of this makes it near impossible to work toward liberation.
Ultimately, the urgency is based on a great boredom with samsara. You really don't want to have to do this yet again. So, work on it while you have a respite from conditions which would make the work impossible.
That being said, reaching enlightenment in this lifetime is supposed to be extremely difficult and rare.
Jason,
You have a very good understanding of original sin and I commend you on it. Not many Christians understand it that well. That being said, I would like to add some things to it.
We both agree that, for Christians, people are born with original sin. I however, do not believe that people are born sinners. If a child dies they are going to go to heaven. (Now, I am not a Mormon, but this may seem like a Mormon concept.) We are not responsible for Adam and Eve's sin. We are entirely responsible for any sin that we ourselves commit though. It is because of original sin that we are more likely to sin ourselves.
I guess I should clarify... people aren't necessarily born with original sin, it's more like they're born into a world where there is original sin. Do you follow me?
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seem like you're saying that one of the reasons you are not a Christian is because you want to be responsible for your own actions and do not want to rely on a savior to help you achieve happiness?
See that's what makes me sad... it's like you're never really going to be good enough. You know that you most likely aren't going to reach enlightenment so what's the purpose of even trying?
With Christianity, you know that you're going to spend eternity in heaven with the Lord. Once you commit your life to Christ then you must honor that bond by living a Christ-glorifying life as best you can. If you wander or make a mistake, your salvation is still there as long as you return to your faith. Christ still loves you and He still accepts you.
I think that concept is so beautiful. It's like, no matter what I do the Father will never forsake me as long as I return to Him.
That being said, not turning away from God is something that I strive for. It's not ideal to walk away from God but it happens sometimes. That's where grace comes in. I don't ever plan on turning away from my Savior, but let's be realistic... I'm only human.
I have a HUGE problem with Mormons... That's a whole other topic though. I'd rather not get into it.
I'm working on coming to a common ground with them. But, to me, right now, I would not classify Mormons as Christians...
Chastise me if you'd like but that's how I feel.
Adopting a realistic view instead of an idealistic one is important.
Buddhism has its "heavens" too, though, and these can be temporary goals on the way to full enlightenment. Perhaps to encourage those that are discouraged by the amount of work involved.
You think the same of Catholics? I've often seen fundamentalist Protestants say the same thing of Catholics.
What do you think of apocryphal Christian texts? Have you read any?
No, I do not think the same of Catholics. I feel like Catholics are a lot more structural than most Protestants but that's not something that I have a problem with. Their doctrine is sound.
I've read a few of the apocryphal texts. I think they're extremely interesting, especially the Maccabees. It's interesting to study their history alongside the "biblical" texts.
I'm off to class, I'll be back on later perhaps. I have a large paper to write for my philosophy class tonight.
That's a great way of looking at it. When people say that our karma carries over, I tend to disagree. However, we are born into an environment where the karma of the past has shaped everything. That sort of makes much more sense, from both Christian and Buddhist viewpoints.
I find this statement grossly inacurate. The cycle of endless rebirths is the greatest of all suffering.
It's not that there is a designated number of lives, written down somewhere, stating that by life 1,516,243 you will achieve full enlightenment and liberation and thus turn the wheel of dharma for countless beings. This is delusional and leads to becoming and rebirth ENDLESSLY.
The chances of experiencing sentient life in a world such as this, in a time such as these, with easy access to a library of knowledge pertaining to the life and teachings of a living buddha are EXTREMELY RARE. How blessed are we that we may discuss such things as the triple jewels and the noble truths and the path. The time for developing ones understanidng of such things, and putting that understanding into practice for the sake of all sentient life, is NOW.
There is no such thing as "my last life," and there no such thing as "my next life." These are only words to describe indescribable phenomena and attachment to such concepts will lead to the attachment of the notion of an abiding self, and endless suffering.
The only true comparison that can be made is that in my experience many christians have a far more lax approach to the values of the 8-fold path, such as right speach, right livelihood, right concentration, and spend far more time in devotion and servitude to their personal concept of god. The buddhist path, if anything, is about urgency and mindfulness which must be recognized in this very moment.
I don't mean to be insulting in any regard, and I hope that I have properly articulated myself.
With Loving-Kindness
Yes, I follow you. That's mainly why I made the distinction between original sin and regular sin. To be honest, this view of sin makes a lot more sense to me, and I think it's more or less akin to the Buddhist concept of unskillful actions. If I were Christian, I'd more than likely adopt a view of sin similar to this. However, I sincerely doubt that many Christians or more 'orthodox' theologians believe we're born free from sin and able to enter heaven without at least being baptized.
For one thing, many Christians take the position that only Jesus was free from sin; and even if we haven't sinned in the sense of breaking one of the ten commandments, that we're born with the underlying tendency to sin, which I think is closer to the type of original sin you're referring to. Nevertheless, this underlying tendency is what makes sin possible and is what keeps us separated from God.
In Buddhism, there's actually a similar concept in the form of the anusaya, often translated as 'underlying tendencies,' which is closely related to the mental defilements of greed, hatred and delusion. There are seven major ones listed in the Pali Canon: sensual passion, ill-will or resistance, views, uncertainty, conceit, craving for becoming and ignorance. These tendencies are really more like subtle obsessions; although, like original sin, their potentiality is present from birth, they just can't be expressed until one's faculties have matured.
So, in Buddhism, we're not seen as being born with a blank slate either, and we have to work at taming certain things that arise in our minds when the conditions for their arising are present, things that just naturally come with having a mind and body. As such, these things aren't seen as being evil or some sort of punishment for a past wrongdoing, but they are seen as clouding the mind, obscuring its potential, or as some might say, natural, luminosity (AN 1.49-52).
No, I'm not a Christian because I don't believe in a creator God, nor do I believe that Jesus is literally the son of God/God in the flesh. Consequently, I don't think that Jesus can save me from anything, let alone the consequences/results of my own actions. Moreover, I don't see how believing in Jesus as a personal saviour will help me to achieve true happiness in the here and now, let alone after death.
That said, I do have a soft spot for Jesus as a spiritual teacher, and I think some of the things he's reported as saying in the New Testament are pretty cool—I especially like, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7), the Sermon on the Mount and his many teachings on forgiveness. I've also found a growing appreciation for Christianity in general (although I do tend to lean more towards the heterodox), thanks in part to our dear friend, Simon (e.g., see my fairly recent blog post, "a new found appreciation").
______________________
12:31 a.m. , 18th Nov. 2010
Originally Posted by Nirvana
The Buddhist who believes in endless rebirths until nirvana does not feel as rushed to get his house completely in order in one lifetime —as there will follow ample opportunities. It’s kinda like having a big, generous bank account —at least from the much more stingy Christian perspective where all you have is one chance, as it were.
Nearly any statement taken out of context can be called inaccurate. Indeed, considering the variations in our measuring tools, our various perspectives, and our individual propensities to "thumb the line" differently with our rulers, it's a good thing to take several measurements before we actually commit our blueprints into edifices others will pass through.
You mean, I think, "the only true contrast..."
The Buddhist path, if anything, is as wide in its variations as is any other. There is no "must" that either pulls or pushes "true" Buddhists.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Jehovah of the ancient Semites was a jealous god and IMO those who call themselves Christians should not be trying to emulate any of his condemnatory characteristics. Buddhists just don't tend to pass moral judgment on others not doing them or others harm, just because certain purity codes are not being upheld. The spiritual seeker, whether Eastern-thinking or Western, accepts others and wishes them well, not eternal torment. This is not a fine distinction. The Eastern wisdom traditions are not judgmental —just discerning of what suits the Taste without investing strong likes or dislikes in these tastes. The Western wisdom tradition, on the other hand, is overrun with legalistic judgments that sometime consign people to eternal hellfire, with no chance of escape.
The Buddhist who believes in endless rebirths until nirvana does not feel as rushed to get his house completely in order in one lifetime —as there will follow ample opportunities. It’s kinda like having a big, generous bank account —at least from the much more stingy Christian perspective where all you have is one chance, as it were.
Well for that matter, what’s the point of being good all the time, either, when there’s always the possibility that you might really mess up on some rainy day and commit the sin that will land you in eternal hellfire? —It’s not just Buddhism, but the entire Eastern mindset that is spacious, non-judgmental, and essentially generous. I’ve seen lots of discussion of original sin in this thread. That is based on an old judgmental and punishing Jehovah who was essentially a stingy patriarchal deity. One life, one chance, sorry!
I think using terms from finance in everyday life can help put these matters into greater perspective. What truly loving parents, upon discovering that their child had spent his whole week’s allowance on candy to indulge his selfish desires would then and there stop giving him any further allowances? The thing is, the child is given opportunities to “come up” and learn. Nothing is wasted in the universe at all, things are recycled and either “come up” or “go down.” Nothing stays the same for long.
Well, to say that nothing is wasted in life would not be a true statement if things just came to a dead-end stop with no ensuing consequences. If one were to believe that goofing around a little was just wasting time and nothing else, what could I say?
Notwithstanding all these thoughts about consigning “goof-offs” to some dung-hill gehenna or fiery Hell, where would we be without extravagance, lavishness, and prodigousness? I mean, that’s what nature is: Behold the great multitude of seeds from the cottonwood tree. Behold the superabundant production of hormones —and enzymes and other proteins in the animal bodies, most of which go unused, being produced “just in case.” Behold the exultation of green plants in their gluttony for water. —But only the human being should be punished for this “selfishness,” as it is “fully sentient and rational.”
No, it's more the case that the concept of karma mirrors the way the universe really exists, at least physically, than does the concept of coming to the ground where you can atone for "original sin." The former is generous and free, the later stingy and forever bound.
Audrey, I am only using your post, not addressing your point here —as this issue of “Karma vs. Original Sin” has become one of the main quandaries of this thread of yours.
How do I address this point?
Parents are providers (Lat. parens) and the God of the Christians is Loving. Therefore, in the true spirit of the New Testament, original sin does not apply. Indeed, the Christian Gospel is about the forgiven-ess of sin. Sin is separation as the “original sin” was separation from the Garden of Eden.
St. Augustine was no mystic, really he wasn’t. In the East only Jesus is The Doctor (Latin, “Teacher”) of the Church and is traditionally shown in iconography always holding “the Book.” In the West, something strange happened and we have all these “saints” set up on pedestals. Of course, tendencies tend to bend and flow, but this is the basic difference between East and West.
Thank Sophia that she sent Jesus (pistis), first, in the form of a snake to let us eat of one tree, and second, as the actual embodiment of the second tree, so that we could shake off the chains of this prison.
What's the point of trying to be a good person if you can just repent on your death bed?
Dukkha.
And that means more than just suffering. It also is the unsatisfactory nature of conditioned existence. Dukkha can also mean something along the lines of stress and anxiety. Pain, sorrow, lamentation, grief and the whole 9 yards.
And sure, there's fire and brimstone and 31 planes of existence in the Buddhist universe. There's also bliss realms and heaven realms if you believe that stuff. If anything, it's not that we don't have your metaphysical trappings, it's that we have a lot more than just your metaphysical trappings.
What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just repent on your death bed?
If at all, 'Heaven' is to be realized in the here and now. The kingdom is within us and around us, right? Laid out before our eyes but none see it? What if the place that Jesus is preparing you for is not after death? What if you die and miss the entire point of what that 2000 year old Reform Jewish Rabbi was trying to say?
Audrey: do you know the Gospel of Thomas? If not, may I recommend it? I hold to the view that it is among the earliest collections of 'Sayings', probably dating from before the end of the first century, even, possibly, from before the fall of Jerusalem which so infects the Synoptics.
My own hermeneutic is based on the statement, by Jesus, that none of those committed to him (i.e. all of us and the world about us) can be lost. If he is the "Saviour of the World", it then appear blasphemous to me to suggest that anyone or anything can be 'cast out'. It makes a liar of Jesus. That the churches insist on their rules of inclusion and exclusion is an historical invention, imported for the purpose of patriarchal and social control, concentrating salvation in the hands of the minority. He, however, has put down the mighty from their seats.
Even Saint Paul cannot hide the fact that we are 'co-heirs' and not slaves.
I think it’s the dialogue that matters here and I think most of us come here for that in order to grow in understanding. I consider myself both Christian and Buddhist, because I am drawn to the irrefutable truth of the latter and was born into the former. That which I am born into is my dharma and it is also my oldest and dearest Friend.
I believe that discussions of these matters is essential to the future harmony of the world. As many have pointed out in the past, religions are like languages. They have different concepts and different grammatical constructs because they emanated, at least to some degree, from peoples living in places far off from each other. Now that the world is coming together, we must dig for the tattered fragments of the mother tongue, and try our best to piece them together in the quilt which is needed to embrace each other properly, with dignity and warmth.
And then Krishna pops up and says, "Yo! Like you totally got to, though. It's like your dharma, man. I mean sheeut your name means 'archer', for Brahman's sake!"
I don't think Buddha would have told him that.
Dharma means a lot of things in Sanskrit. I dunno about damma.
All's I knows is dat dharma primarily means Law or Rule and law is basically convention. Christianity is the convention in which I was born and will remain most conversant in, with the prompting of my guru. It's the red-letter Bible (Words of Jesus) and the resurrected Jesus of the gnostic traditions that resonate with me. However, to whatever extent I can be remade a Buddhist, that is the direction I am flowing.
I need not apologize for what I am. I am peddling as fast I can, but I see lights all around and just a few Beacons that stand, really, not that far apart.
Anyhow, I don't want to take this thread off topic by dissenting with any view. My point in my last post is that listening is more important than speaking. If we react too soon, as I perhaps have done, and not allow time and space for the other person's view to sink in, I'm afraid we're not communicating, but only exchanging words.
The questions Audrey has asked here, along with our responses, her feedback, and our responses to that have been worthwhile, I think. To me, the most important thing to achieve here is getting everybody to think just a little bit more out of the box. Let me be the first to admit that I am not convinced yet of anything I said above except those times when I spoke of my affection for both Jesus and Buddha.
Shalom!
It would seem that you recieved many good and thought provoking replys. I would like to answer your questions to the best of my understanding:
1. Would you agree that ignorance requires a teacher, much like sin requires a savior? :
Ignorance is born from delusion; this delusion is the concept that I am a solid, fixed unchangeing entity that is separate from everything else. Ignorance requires wisdom; to know that I don't inherently exist and to not identify all manner of events as if they related to me personally. To begin to realize this body, these preceptions, these feeling, mental formations and this very conscious is not mine. They are not self, nor are they permenant. This is the beginning of wisdom. My teacher is Buddha. Sin is predicated on a subjective idea of good and bad, this too is not fixed. Is it God's concept of sin?
2. What is the source of the human predicament? (Christians would say it is sin, what would Buddhists say? Or is the question completely irrelevant for a Buddhist?)
What is the human predicament exactly? Death? Suffering? illness? Becoming old? Or is it the desire to have things (especially good things) stay fixed, permanent and unending when nothing in life (or this universe is) and suffering as a result. We suffer because our concepts and desires don't comport with reality.
3. What is the purpose for your life?
There is no "planned" purpose. I could be a raging drunk that beats my children and a creates much suffering for myself or those around me or I could choose that which is skillful and results in peace, joy and wellbeing. It is up to me; the seeds that I plant by my thoughts, my words or my deeds will bear fruit, and I will inherit that fruit. I am accountable and responsible for all that I do, say or think. The purpose of my life is very simple, do I want joy or suffering. Do I take refuge in the Triple Gem or in my own ego-clinging.
4. Do you have a hope for the future? (Will the world get better?)
This life is glorious, profound and auspicious! People and this very life are no different than they were since the dawn of humanity. We create our own suffering by investing in delusion. We always have. Will the world be better than what? Comparisons are odious. What is there to compare it to? Memory, books, ideas? All these things are not the world, as the old saying goes; the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.
5. Why is there evil in the world? (Theodicy!)
Is there evil in the world? Or do people simply make unwise, unskillful or even harmful choices that result in suffering?
6. I was reading about the age of Mappo and that it is just basically the time we are in now that has been tied down with bad karma... can you explain this to me?
I don't know this idea. I make my own karma, by my thoughts, my words and my deeds, be they skillful or unskillful.
7. If you had been born during the shobo period, would your life have been different? (I guess what I'm getting at is, Were you just born at the wrong time? Is that why you can't reach enlightenment on your own?)
I don't know this idea either. To reach or not reach enlightenment is not a concern of mine. Living mindfully day to day, compassion and loving kindness is my aspiration. I really have only one goal; to live and to die without regret.
With much Metta,
Todd
Under the Banner of Heaven is not exactly a Mormon-friendly book, being primarily concerned with violent Mormon fundamentalists. But I came away from it with a very positive impression of Joseph Smith's later years. He seemed like a true saint. (The book is also a cracking good read.)
This is a major difference between the Christian understanding of the underpinnings of the universe and its basic structure and the traditional Buddhist. The Christian Theology seeks eternal life in communion with the divine, and would be willing to walk through Hell a thousand times for a Heavenly Cause. As such, samsara is not the ultimate reality, as the Christian does not see himself rolling through time endlessly evolving and devolving, desperately in need of a rest. No, the Christian rests in God. Indeed, the Christian spiritual teachings teach that the Christian may even rest in God in this life, consigning all cares in prayer to the Lord.
On the other hand, for a bodhisattva, seeking full enlightenment in any lifetime may ultimately be seen as the height of selfishness. Better just to get a very good glimpse of the land of Shangri-La, as it were, commit it to memory, and then go about spreading the news to others.
There is neither need for great urgency on behalf of the Buddhist nor any possible incentive to "goof off,"either.
The ground of all being is at once both substance and mere waves of energy. Whether that ground be the solid rock out of which Christians see themselves to be hewn or the ground of nonbeing which the Buddhists favor, we all inhabit the same consciousness. Whether you see basic reality as particles or as waves, physicists have shown that it's your perspective that makes all the difference —not the "things-in-themselves." The ground of Being is Nonbeing. You cannot really know what light is until you are deprived of it in darkness. You think the earth is solid ground, until the earthquake lurches up from hidden depths.
Originally Posted by aellyn:
Doesn't this present the problem that some people might choose to goof off during their first few lives before becoming serious? What's the point in trying to be a good person if you can just try again in your next lifetime?
Thanks, not1not2, for this "answer" to Audrey's question. Much more apt than mine!
Dunno about that, but thanks. My main point is that you can find these sorts of issues in ANY tradition. But where you find serious seekers, you find practice. While hell, etc appeals to the ego-driven more than the whole 'being in the moment' or 'virtue is its own reward' message, that doesn't mean that should be the metric to measure religions by.
Touche.
Precisely the same point as trying to be a good person if there is no afterlife to 'reward' you.
A:-2 Precisely the same point as trying to be a good person if there is no afterlife to 'reward' you.
I know it's quite late in the UK, esteemed Pilgrim, but I don't see any "precise" parallel between the two, at all.
From both the experiential and the moral points of view, we do the good and right things just because they are the good and the right things to do. The good things we do for the experience of joy and communion we derive from so doing, and we do the right things because these are the things it would pain us not to do.
Some people do good things because they feel good as a result but there are also those who do bad things and feel good as a result.
Some people do good things and feel bad as result.
These are the paradoxes of our lives and, in my Weltanschauung, the paradox of a suffering God. (cf. Moltmann)
[It is actually "early" over here, Nirvy my dear friend. Oh, the joys of insomnia enlivened by the Net! Grace abounds.]
That's not what I was trying to say. Regarding the experiential, I was not saying that people feel good only as a result of doing good. My claim was that people feel pleasure and joy and purpose and fulfillment in doing good things while they are doing them and because they're doing them. In other words, the good they can do is what motivates them. What feelings come afterwards are not pertinent to my point at all. I am very familiar with depressed people in the nursing home —depressed chiefly because they cannot be out there doing the good they live for.
I won't even touch on the moral argument in this post, not only because space does not permit it but it's an entire other dimension I'll address later, if it still seems pertinent, time permitting. I know of no reason, though, why a thread on salvation should be barred from homing in on the ethical.
Now, as to people doing bad things and feeling good as a result —yes, that does happen. Doing bad things to "people who deserve it" (taking the law into one's own hands, as it were) is something perhaps we all have done in minor ways along our various paths. Short-term it may feel good, but in the long-run I think most people would regret these acts and call them mistakes. Indeed, in times of sickness, these would be the spectres that might come back to haunt them. At that point it's completely beside the point whether what they did was bad or just "a little wrong." It just feels bad and it makes the people feel like they're bad people.
- - - - - -
And true, there are those who feel good during the commission of bad deeds, as it may give a power rush or even gratify an appetite for power in them. And although this ability would be useful on places such as the battlefield, it may well be that all these deeds will come back to haunt people later in life. In that case their "bad deeds" will not leave them "feeling good as a result." We've heard of cases such as a soldier slitting the throat of any enemy combatant in wartime haunting him to his grave.
The thing is, people are beautiful creatures, fixed halfway between heaven and earth, their dreams floating on clouds and their love and affection for others pulling them towards being more gracious and giving of themselves. People are pulled to the good and they really want to do well. Really, none of these propositions we've been looking at lately will make much sense to you when you're on your deathbed. They're all really just talk and theory, but that's not the kind of world we inhabit. We live in a world chock-full of Beautiful People, some of which sometimes get things all mussed up for a while.
Now when people do good things or even the right thing and feel bad as a result, I'd hope that would be because things turned out badly as a result of their doings. However, their intentions, though misguided or not suitable, were not bad. There are other cases, too, of people doing good things or the right things feeling bad as a result because their lives changed or because they were just miserable people who only did the good by accident. Theoretically you could construct tens of scenarios, I imagine. However, our purpose on this thread is some sort of Christian-Buddhist dialogue, and perhaps we shouldn't take these propositions too seriously.
Hey, don't be like me!!!!!
In his The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching, Thich Nhat Hanh says
You may like to compare this with Moltmann's wonderful essay The Crucified God. A long read but a vital one for any modern Christian theology student:
Does this refer to my post? If so, what do you mean? If not, to what do you refer, TheFound?
Could it be that “Moltmann's wonderful essay” which you gave links to in posts 94 and 97 above seemed a little too intellectual and not likely to mold minds and hearts in the big, bad world?
from the concluding paragraphs of the essay:
HOWEVER, the churches are always tapping into the popular culture to “keep relevant” to the cultural idols of fame, action, and image. The churches are in the “money-making” business, too. Indeed, on today’s "religious television" such channels as INSP largely sport preachers who talk of nothing but money, wealth, and personal fortune and prestige. They urge people to give them a thousand dollar “seed” that will yield them a thousand-fold. Don’t have the cash? Put it on your credit card? Already in debt? Well, if you spend your money on other things, there’s no dividend, but if you plant a “seed,” then you will be rewarded (by your Father in Heaven who knows every hair on your head).
Look at the churches turning to simpy, sentimental music to use at Divine Service. No matter how excellent the old tried-and-true stuff was, you gotta appeal to the popular culture to get the folks in. No, the churches are bodies that spend 88% of their time and money just keeping the show of playing church going.
The article begins by stating:
How true, especially of the churches.
Q 2. What is the source of the human predicament? (Christians would say it is sin, what would Buddhists say?
RE: What is the underpinning common ground that both "religions" subscribe to?
Falling short of perfection is not a “ground" that is “in common” with both Buddhism and Christianity. The Buddha never stipulated that people were incapable of reaching perfection in this lifetime.
On the other hand, there is a common ground of dialogue about the human condition that both Buddhists and Christians agree on. Selfishness and self-seeking is a problem that both Buddhism and Christianity see as an underlying cause for unhappiness and sin. If you ask me, though, I think that Buddhism makes a frontal assault on problems both created by this selfishness and ones that compound it. Christianity, in comparison, tends to obfuscate the real problems in our lives by distracting us with a lot of fables. These fables, though pretty on some levels, unfortunately are no longer sophisticated enough for many to take seriously. These fables are even seen by many as a key element, and so the overall situation really is as hopeless as a sinking ship. It is to the religions of Mother India that serious people will in future turn for guidance.
Original sin, much alluded to in this thread as perhaps a Christian parallel to karma, is a subjectivistic conception, based on a narrow mythical interpretation of the gospels. Christians need not be as narrow as the four great neurotics of Christianity were. After all, Jesus had his own message. How others presented it afterwards is not necessarily right, just because their party seems to have won the day in the West. In the East, Christians do not see things in such stark terms, but gravitate to the more Hellenistic Origen. In the more mystical Eastern Orthodox churches, the human being is not a slave to a willful deity, but rather a co-creator with him. To be saved, man must join his being together with God in a "synergeia" whereby his entire being, including his will, effort, and desire, are perfectly conformed with, and united to, the divine. The ultimate goal of the Orthodox Christian is to achieve theosis (deification), or Union with God, not merely to be able to gaze on the divine presence in eternal bliss. Dualism was all along only in the mind that set its interests off, apart from the whole.
In the West, on the other hand, the four neurotics (St. Paul, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin) heavily stressed the separateness of man from God. If grace is free and undeserved, they all ask, then why are not all free —unless predestination of God's elect is at play? Such a view is very dualistic and just cannot see any real underlying unity between humanity and the divine. Salvation in the West is seen as being saved from damnation, whereas Damnation in the East is seen as being forever deprived of union with the divine.