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.
Can one be both Buddhist AND Christian?
Magwang
Veteran
A Christian is someone who takes Jesus as their savior. Salvation by grace through faith.
A Buddhist is a follower of Buddha, so who advised us to be "lamps unto ourselves" and that belief in a God is a "vain and empty thing".
So...despite all the obvious moral similarities... I have trouble seeing how you can truly believe both at the same time.
Thoughts?
A Buddhist is a follower of Buddha, so who advised us to be "lamps unto ourselves" and that belief in a God is a "vain and empty thing".
So...despite all the obvious moral similarities... I have trouble seeing how you can truly believe both at the same time.
Thoughts?
0
Comments
I spent the best part of my first 40 years or so as a Roman Catholic, practising (to varying degrees) and by and large sticking to the rule Book.
I've spent the past 8 years or so practising (because I haven't got it right yet!) Buddhism, to varying degrees, and by and large, sticking to the guidelines.....
I have gleaned a great deal out of Catholicism and Christianity, because in essence, I have managed to separate what is Man-made, theological thought structure, and what I feel is the true message being transmitted......
I have gleaned a great deal out of Buddhism and its philosophy, because I have managed to separate the illusion of what I thought life was, from the basic simple Truth of the Words Buddha speaks to me....
And I find that in many many ways - more than I thought possible, to begin with - the message from the two is fundamentally the same.
To Love one another as I have loved you.
To be happy and to make others happy.
I am not an expert on the Bible, the scriptures or chapter and verse.
I am not an expert on the Dharma, the Sutras or of the Buddha's many teachings.
But I think I know enough to understand the central basics... be it of Christianity, or Buddhism.
For me,
A Christian is one who perceives God's Word and knows that it is Good. A Christian knows that God dwells in the Heart of every Man.
A Buddhist is one who perceives that the Eightfold Path is the Way out of Suffering. A Buddhist knows that 'The Jewel is in the Lotus.'
For me, the two are not incompatible.
The question you may want to ask yourself is what is meant by Jesus as a "personal saviour". The modern and local aberration of the "born again" hysteria is neither the only, nor the oldest, understanding of the phrase.
It is quite possible to read Scripture with an inclusive 'hermeneutic' rather than an exclusive one. At that point, we can notice that the shift or spin that Jesus and Paul put on Judaism is to make it personal, which means that it becomes a matter of personal responsibility. Judaism is, in essence, a social faith; the Jesus-follower has to take responsibility for each action, thought, movement of soul.
Once read like this, the notion of "personal" becomes a challenge rather than some sort of mawkish and idolatrous self-abasement before an Anointed One. It is the understanding that each one of us, personally, is called to Salvation, the liberation from slavery and suffering. Beyond that, in the realm of the mystical, we are challenged to bring our own Christ-nature into reality: to be a Christ to our neighbour and the world. To some writers, this is the true Second Coming, not a future event of terror but a present and moment-to-moment Parousia.
Once read like this, there is no contradiction between the Jesus/Paul message and that of the Buddha and Buddhist writers.
Let me explain my post.
My intent is not to start another inane comparison of B to C, or to minimize C (my cheeky avatar not withstanding). I realize that my post sounds superficial and argumentative, but that is not my intent. Perhaps it is coloured by my own experience.
During the dark period of my life, just before my "conversion" from C to B, I kept a journal where I poured my guts out. The last entry was "I need to tie my own shoes...". I wrote that down before I even knew what it meant. I had hit bottom, but I knew that my salvation was MY responsibility.
I had wrestled with my God, started to surrender to Jesus, but pulled back at the last second. I knew - somehow - that C was not the answer for me. Mere faith was not the solution to my troubles. I have to do the hard work. Then and there I decided to pull myself up from my own bootstraps. If there is a God, I think that is what she wants me to do.
Salvation is the goal. But the methods of C and B are different. In C, it is your faith. In B, it is your effort. I used to have faith. I'm not a cynic, but misplaced hope is dangerous.
Anyway....I agree with all the similarities of C & B and yes, they can be compatible. But you have to admit there is a fundamental difference in "mindset" between C & B.
I'm trying to learn more about C, but the more I look, the harder it is to define the core principles of C. Hence my simplistic definition. After reading Karen Armstrong's The History of God, I can see how the philosophy of Jesus and Paul has been corrupted over the years.
B, on the other hand, has a clear, concise philosophy that has remain unchanged for 2500 years. Yes, the dharma is vast and varied, but the core principles are the same.
So...let me re-phrase: If one claims to adhere to the philosophy of both C & B, how does one reconcile the modern definition of C ie. salvation by an outside entity, with the B concept of salvation i.e. by one's own effort?
Pure Land Buddhism seems to match very closely to Christianity. Both rely on an outside source for salvation/nirvana.
Isn't the ultimate goal of Christianity to go to Heaven? To be with the Father? Being saved from the death of this world?
Isn't the ultimate goal of Buddhism to identify and remove suffering from your life and become an enlightened "being" now? As opposed to something happening later? Possibly after you're dead?
It could be stated that the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to end the cycle of rebirth and attain Nirvana - but I don't believe that to be true. I believe that anyone that has come to Buddha's teachings are interested in the "here and now" opposed to living a life of suffering and doubt "hoping" that there is a Christian God in the end.
-bf
Let me explain:
BF, you say By using the term "go to", you are buying into the idea that 'heaven' is out there, outside you, whereas Jesus clearly says that the basileia (translated as Kingdom) is within us. He also comes up with this extraordinary notion that the Father lives within us. And, to your third point, what is the real difference between liberation from samsara and being freed from 'sin and death'?
Magwang,
You say Again, you are taking a local and recent definition as being normative. There have been 2000 years of diversity in Christian thought. The fact that the Manichaeism of Augustine of Hippo has become the prevailing fashion does not wipe out much else that has been written. As a personal position, I do not accept the Augustine definition of "Original Sin" but am of the Irenaean school which cleaves to "Original Blessing" - and this is only one aspect in which I differ from many contemporary Christian writers and preachers.
Please understand that I do not say that there is a point for point identity between the Buddha and Jesus but I am able to find enough similarity for each discipline to inform and illuminate the other. Nor do I pluck my ideas out of the air or for personal preference: they arise from my reading of Scripture and the sutras, and from studying as many scholars and commentators as my poor mind can cope with!
EM
Why did I become a Buddhist?
Being a Buddhist I do not have to kiss up to anybody.
When someone is pressured into behaving unnaturally we know it is not right.
Let go. Release yourself to the Love that personifies both God and Buddha.
That is the best way. That is the Middle way.
a warm and open-armed welcome to our community, Wongkow!
Question: Can one be both Christian and Buddhist?
Answer: If I read only the literal definition, no. If I look deeper into the "original" intent, then C & B are more alike than I think.
Death to dualistic, conceptual thought!
I am a Correllian Tradition Wiccan and I am also a Nichiren Buddhist. To me, both ways of life seem to speak to me and all I know is that it works for me. I cannot say the same for anyone else. I don't try to figure it out either. However, that is just my opinion. Others have the right to ask questions and try to assimilate things as is best for them.
Adiana:mullet:
I definitely agree. What does it really matter as long as they are happy?
Jason
Are you quite sure that personal happiness is a valid criterion? I am sure that President Saddam Hussein was happy in his palaces.
Thank you, Bushinoki, I do my poor best.
The question about all those who lived before Jesus and those who have never heard the gospel is one which the Catholic Church addressed very early on. They introduced the notion of the worthy pagan and of "invincible ignorance". In addition, from earliest times, baptism was considered a sine qua non for salvation but unbaptised martyrs (like Saint Alban) were deemed to have been baptised by their own blood! It is a problem that greatly exercised the early writers.
THIS IS ACTUALLY A RESPONSE TO ELOHIM'S POST, BELOW. (How does that happen?)
I was not being critical, Jason. I read your post and I realised that I was asking myself that question.
Many years ago, I asked, in a journal article, whether we, as psychotherapists, could uncritically accept as OK whatever outcome was sought by our clients. Some years later, I came across an account by R. D. Laing, the Scottish psychiatrist, of an anaesthetist patient who had been killing his own patients on the operating table. That, however, was not what he had come to Laing about. I also had clients, referred by the courts, who aspired to stopping tyhe feelings of guilt not the criminal activities.
So, I ask myself and all: is happiness actually a skillful criterion on its own? Do we not also require discernment? It is exactly for that reason that I evoke extreme examples: that is where the problem becomes clear.
I do not believe there is an easy, hard-and-fast answer. Parenting, for example, is all about the precarious balance between happiness by instant gratification and the notion of waiting, or between different ideas of what is OK.
I hope you understand that this is not to contradict your comment, it is simply an old dilemma of mine and one which I have still to resolve.
I am a little surprised. Why take my meaning out of context? I believe that you knew full well what I was referring to, but if not then let me clarify...
In relation to the thread's topic (being both Buddhist and Christian), and Adiana's response of:
"I am a Correllian Tradition Wiccan and I am also a Nichiren Buddhist. To me, both ways of life seem to speak to me and all I know is that it works for me. I cannot say the same for anyone else. I don't try to figure it out either. However, that is just my opinion. Others have the right to ask questions and try to assimilate things as is best for them."
I asserted that I agreed with her. Why can't a person study and practice both [Christianity and Buddhism] if it makes them happy?
What in the world does that have to do with Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, or any other unpopular figure in history?
:wtf:
Jason
First, I must have deleted my post while at the same time you were replying. I simply wanted to edit the first sentence and I ended up reposting it. Ha! All my fault I'm afraid. Sorry for the confusion.
As for your first reply, I guess I did not completely understand it. I saw it as you saying everything must be seen from 'extreme' points of view, whereas, in the realm of Buddhism extremes are to be abandoned for the Middle Way. I thought, "Of course there will always be those who take their 'happiness and desires' and act upon them in such extreme ways that great suffering arises for others, but they are not the majority. Is it really fair to use them as a way to judge all 'happiness'?".
In your second reply things became clearer. I believe that it is the word 'happiness' that caused the initial confusion. In this context, I view speaking about 'happiness' as related to the Buddhist ideas of such i.e. being beyond sensual desires, benefiting oneself and others, not harming oneself and other, etc. I do not know about others here, but when I use 'happiness' I do not always mean it in the way of 'the joy from indulging in all of our desires and behaviors'. I agree that not all 'happiness' is actually a skillful criterion on its own. In most cases (because out of ignorance) we justify our actions by how much 'happiness' "we" receieve. That is always going to condition pain, suffering, and delusion. There is no hard-and-fast answer with regards to mundane 'happiness' a.k.a. giving in to our sense desires, but there can be hard-and-fast answers with regards to supramumdane happiness (which includes discernment) a.k.a. that which is beyond sensual pleasures, Cessation, Unbinding, Nibbana.
I believe that I now understand you were not trying to be critical (although this extra information would have definitely cleared that up in your original post
Jason
If I understand you correctly, I disagree about "hard and fast answers" in either case.
Well I disagree with me too.
Jason
It is merely my point of view, but I believe that with Awakening comes the hard-and-fast answers of doing whatever is out of compassion for others. These answers arise straight out of wisdom as there is no ignorance to impede them. There is no 'self' to cause friction, no obstacles to Right Action. In Nibbana there is nothing left but a selflessness to act for the benefit of others. What Awakened individual would act for his or her own immediate self-gratification? By the very definition of the supreme happiness, there could be none.
Jason