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.
Apologists (Christian and Muslim) critiques of Buddhism on Youtube - WTF???
The_Dharma_Farmer
Explorer
Hey y'all me again, just finished publishing an article I've written in gobsmacked incredulity at some of the videos on Youtube these days. I'd never come across the Apologist movement, and it's really shocked me. Does anyone now about whether by publishing a counter article, highlighting either wild inaccuracy or slander (take your pick) this makes me a Buddhist Apologist? I'm a bit confused by it all, but understand that it is a fundamentalist movement found in most religions, but predominantly in the Christian right-wing groups.
If you are interested, the article is mid-length, and inspired by Youtube and some unbelievable videos (included in the blog). I've taken to clarifying some common Christian, Muslim and secular misunderstandings of Buddhism such as Karma, God, morality, basic teachings etc. Be careful, do your research, otherwise you could look dangerously stupid globally! ;-) I hope you enjoy! No offence intended, and as always, if you like the cake, please share it with others ;-) xx
Lost In Translation: Common misunderstandings explained
Here is the link to the video itself... Wow... MUST SEE!
Buddhism Vs Christianity
Metta and peace to all, I'm not intending to offend, not at all, but simply curious about whether there is a Buddhist Apologist movement, lol! :-)
The Dharma-Farmer xx
If you are interested, the article is mid-length, and inspired by Youtube and some unbelievable videos (included in the blog). I've taken to clarifying some common Christian, Muslim and secular misunderstandings of Buddhism such as Karma, God, morality, basic teachings etc. Be careful, do your research, otherwise you could look dangerously stupid globally! ;-) I hope you enjoy! No offence intended, and as always, if you like the cake, please share it with others ;-) xx
Lost In Translation: Common misunderstandings explained
Here is the link to the video itself... Wow... MUST SEE!
Buddhism Vs Christianity
Metta and peace to all, I'm not intending to offend, not at all, but simply curious about whether there is a Buddhist Apologist movement, lol! :-)
The Dharma-Farmer xx
0
Comments
Sorry to say so, but I don't think the "apologist" does either Buddhism or Christianity even a comic-book-level service.
Still, the notion that sincerity is an adequate replacement for rational thought is hardly limited to such apologists.
PS. Interesting to note that the "comment" function on the video is disabled.
I suppose it is a good idea to have someplace that anyone who might be interested in doing some honest checking can find some honest answers.
Personally I would caution spending too much time down that rabbit hole so you don't pick up any habits of the monster you are hunting.
I just don't see why this guy feels compelled to hold it up against other religions / beliefs as better? What's he worried about that compels him to do it?
I read A. L. De Silva's book, (online somewhere in PDF form), which spends 90% of the time beating up on Fundamentalist Christianity (he's responding to missionaries in Thailand), 10% of the time explaining how Buddhism is rational and modern.
Inside Buddhism, this is mostly under the title of Critical Buddhism (People beating up on Buddhism for various goals, other people rushing to it's defense). So Buddhist apologists are often critics of the critics.
Apologists are all over the place, they just don't call themselves that. Catholic apologia were responses to science and the age of Enlightenment. DT Suzuki is a Zen Apologist, when he came to the west & wrote for the Western audience, he removed from Zen all the references to religion, making it look far more secular and tame than it was historically- ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._T._Suzuki
Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche is sort of an apologist, in the sense of creating a new form of Buddhism that took into account how the west saw things (implicitly critical of a medieval viewpoint)
The Speculative non-Buddhist is a few academics that seem to want to either burn Buddhism to the ground and then see what can be salvaged, or maybe just burn it to the ground. Punk Rock Zen Buddhism in general has this element of criticism.
This book on Chinese Orthodox Buddhism has many sections that are "defensive"- http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Chinese-Buddhism-Contemporary-Questions/dp/1556436572 It's a FAQ style book that answers many questions that might come from a less than friendly Christian standpoint (Do Buddhist Worship Idols?)
Pure Land Buddhists have to defend themselves from within & without, ref: http://a-fistful-of-sand.blogspot.com/2013/03/original-pure-land.html I have a book in my queue to read -- I was hoping to find someone to defend Pure Land, I'm hoping "River of Fire, River of Water" by Unno is that book, but I haven't read it. I'm hoping he will explain the case for Amidaism so I don't have to be so judgmental about them ;-)
Especial thanks for @matthewmartin - friend, that will keep me spellbound for hours. I hope people enjoyed the read as well, please feel free to msg/twitter me if its spun any thoughts or associations... @thedharmafarmer
Cheers guys, I love this forum so much! xx
My closest girlfriend is a Christian. Her parents were hippies and Christian missionaries, they lived all over the world. My friend was born in Texas but has only been living in the US since 2008. She has made some fascinating observations about "american" Christianity. Apparently, Christianity in other parts of the world is unpacked differently. For instance, in the 'liberal' political ideologies of other countries, Christians dominate in numbers, which is the apparent opposite of what goes on here. She was shocked at the displays of hostility 'american' Christianity shows toward other belief systems, and is disgusted with the creepy superiority so well illustrated in the second video.
She knows I am Buddhist in my orientation toward the 'divine', and has known personally ethnic Buddhists in China and India. It bothers ME more than it ever did her, as I am used to "american" Christians chasing heathens with pitchforks. The former no longer inform me as to the quality of Christianity as a religion, but for a while, they did.
Why Dr Bobbie feels compelled to hold it up against other religions as "better", in my opinion, is because superiority and Christianity are equivalencies. And superiority (however one wants to define it) necessitates ongoing assertion of itself. It is by nature threatened and threatening. Christians of his type are relentless because the alternative is the end of their special status, the end of their escape from reality, and their abandonment in a very unpredictable and impersonal cosmos.
If Christianity were only one path among many, a simple friend to other paths to realization, it couldn't have been born of Jehovah, a jealous god. Christianity's karma is that of a conquering paradigm, not a co-existent one, at least that's how I perceive it.
My experience of Christians in Australia is that they keep it to themselves in general. My friends who are Christian (there are a couple) don't go to church and don't mention it to me.
I actually find the athiests I know far more outspoken (annoying!) than any Christian I've met.
Perhaps it's a difference in culture?
Atheists in America seem to be coming into their own, with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris at the fore. I have an old buddy on Facebook who posts the most obnoxious atheist-themed memes . . . gads, some of them are spot on but I don't "like" the aggression either! In many cases, the outspoken atheists are doing the exact same thing as the outspoken Christians; instead of being doomed and going straight to Hell, you are just stupid and an embarrassment to your fellow human being
I guess it makes some people feel safer in this big scary cosmos to make public announcements that they are have the real Truth. As if safety were a limited commodity and one must grab up as much as one can before other people get it. Besides . . . keeping it to yourself denies you the chance to enjoy the discomfort and envy your superiority inspires in others. How can one be superior if no one else knows about it?
We are all on a journey. Some through ignorance and lack of opportunity will never be able to appreciate Youtube Voodoo.
Like many here I have met great Pagans, Christians, Muslims and postmen. I am told Buddhists are OK but no one seems to know any . . . :nyah:
Exactly.
There's a great deal of pain and suffering caused by people who declare themselves _________. If you doubt it, look at the deaths and injuries caused in Thailand during the riots 4 years ago and again now. They are pretty much all "committed" Buddhists (not to mention what has been happening in Burma, recently).
Very important distinction, and point well taken
I rely enjoyed reading your article @The_Dharma_Farmer. I did not view most of the videos, you only need to see 1 or 2 and reflect on what you are clarifying in your article.
You used many words which really were closer to the true meaning of what the buddha said. But even he was limited by the language he could use - he purportedly said he was teaching one thing and one thing only - the cessation of Dukkha, so whatever the buddha said should be interpreted in this way, as a teaching on the cessation of Dukkha. Everything else is what your imagination conceives it to be. Sometimes that leads you down wrong paths. agnosticism, theism, atheism, secularism - they are just labels. It's wise to detach yourself from such labels as inevitably, they lead to Dukkha. Believe or don't believe in god, beliefs are yours and yours alone to hold, belief is your self desire.
It is essential to really understand what the 4NTs actually mean before you can even begin, I misunderstood it fully for the first 10 years.
The underlying lesson is that if you want to be awakened to how you end Dukkha, and if you want to understand yourself. Read and try to truly understand the 4NT's. Not once, not twice but every time you find yourself dissatisfied, with yourself and with what you think buddhists and other religious commentators say. I find when I meditate on the 4NT's I gain deeper insight and realisation of the subtle nature of dukkha.
But Dukkha is just a label, so I'll let that go for now.
Thank you for taking the time to help illuminate a major misunderstanding of what buddha taught. The one thing we are gathered here on this forum to learn together.
Have a nice day, and don't apologise for what you have written.
Mettha
this man is telling lies about buddhism and the teaching of Jesus. I guess he never read the New Testimony nor does he even know that there is Pali-Canon, the bible of the buddhist.
This man is igrnorant. Buddhism and Christian teaching have so much in common. Jesus was very much influenced by buddhist teaching.
anando
Im sad to say that my sister died last week of bowel cancer, hence my slow response time, please accept my apologies.
@anando - Yes, on an ethical level, which ultimately is a the first step on the three-fold path, including as it does meditation and wisdom.
@vinlyn - this might surprise you, but most historians and scholars who are concerned with the historicity of Jesus believe that it would have been impossible for Jesus to have had no contact with Buddhism, especially when he took that 12 years out. Many contemporary records suggest that during this time he may have moved north-east, towards Kashmir, and spent time studying various belief systems and engaging in dialectic debate, as was the custom of holy men in that time, before returning to what is now Israel.
There is also this essay which is too remarkable to ignore, looking at the numerous and striking doctrinal and textual similarities between the bible and the suttas such as the Dhammapada which are impossible to ignore, again, a text which would have reached Galilee by then and been widely available in the circles he would have travelled in. Here is the link:
Was Jesus a Buddhist?
There is also a remarkable documentary re-examining the crucifixion and alleged resurrection of the historical Jesus, asking the question: Did Jesus really die on the cross? Believe it or not, there is a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest that he may have actually survived, as part of a pre-arranged plan, and went on to teach his gospel in remote places much further afield, unbeknownst to his friends, family and followers. Again, here is the link if people are interested...
Was Jesus a Buddhist Monk?
I hope you enjoy, I can't say for certain by the way what I believe, but all this evidence, all coming from Christian sources themselves... Well, it sure gives us something to ponder, for sure ;-)
All the best guys, enjoy...
Metta, D.F xx
You might also like to refer to this Wikipedia entry (not that Wikipedia is infallible, but in this case it points out the feelings of several other scholars):
"Rejection of influences
A number of scholars have stated that suggestions of an influence from Buddhism on Christianity, particularly Jesus's alleged travels to Buddhist India, are fanciful and without any historical basis:
Robert Van Voorst states that modern scholarship has "almost unanimously agreed" that claims of the travels of Jesus to Tibet, Kashmir or India contain "nothing of value".[6]
Marcus Borg states "Scholars have pointed out that Buddhist teachers lived in Alexandria, on the Mediterranean coast, by the first century. Some have posited that Jesus might have traveled there, or that Buddhist teachings may have reached cities of the Jewish homeland, including Sepphoris, a major city in Galilee only four miles from Nazareth. Popular speculation speaks of Jesus having traveled to India during "the missing years" the decades before he emerged on the stage of history. There, it is suggested, he came in to contact with Buddhist teachings. But both explanations are unlikely and unnecessary. The similarities are not of the kind that suggest cultural borrowing".[38]
Leslie Houlden states that although modern parallels between the teachings of Jesus and Buddha have been drawn, these comparisons emerged after missionary contacts in the 19th century and there is no historically reliable evidence of contacts between Buddhism and Jesus.[7]
Paula Fredriksen states that no serious scholarly work places Jesus outside the backdrop of 1st century Palestinian Judaism.[12]
Eddy and Boyd state that there is no evidence of a historical influence by outside sources on the authors of the New Testament, and most scholars agree that any such historical influence on Christianity is entirely implausible given that first century monotheistic Galilean Jews would not have been open to what they would have seen as pagan stories.[9][13]"
Of course, I'll put forward that during one of Siddhartha's deepest meditations he went forward in time, learned the teachings of Jesus, and then went back to his own time and infused those teachings into his own.
Im curious, respectful of other's beliefs, interested in understanding them, but the historicity of Jesus has no bearing on my life whatsoever. I'd love to know if any of the scholars you quoted were Christian in their beliefs... I only posted those links for those who are interested in the debate. I certainly found them fascinating, but only in the same way I find the La Brea tar pits fascinating - wonderful to know a bit about, but ultimately of no real concern.
Ultimately, all this discussion does is take us away from our present experience and give the ego something to get excited about. I can certainly see why people like @anando can see very obvious similarities between the ethical precepts of both belief systems, and so long as people are encouraged to be kind, generous, truthful and considerate, that's what matters - secular ethics. I think Jesus was a bit like the John Lennon of Galilee, and paid the price. I certainly find it easier to believe that he was interested in understanding the multiplicity of religious bodies at the time than believe that he arose from the dead at God's command and ascended to heaven in the flesh, but hey, that's just the scientist in me ;-)
Please don't think I'm being inflammatory. As I said, Im dealing with a lot of sadness and grief at the mo, so if I appear at all curt, or if I offend anyone, I sincerely apologise, it is not my intention. I am a Buddhist writer, not a Christian one, so excuse my ignorance on the subject.
Thanks you for posting all the quotes though - I have to say it does seem to go against everything I had heard or read up to this point, but equally, so long as people are happier, kinder people for whatever they believe in, then I'm happy. What do scholars tend to say that Jesus' influences were then? Obviously the New Testament isn't going to want to be associated with 'pagan' beliefs.
All the best xx
Another part of being skillful in speech is being accurate. And, as far as I've ever read, there is no clear evidence accepted by a majority of religious scholars of much of what you suggest in your post.
Why do you question the personal religion of the scholars in the Wikipedia article, but not those who have postulated the point of view in your post?
The article that you referenced is a good, well-written article. It opens the door to further study. But it is about as far from being conclusive as one can get.
My background is the sciences. And as such, I often want to draw distinctions between what is factual and what is not factual. What is factual today is not the be all and end all. There is an evolution of facts in most fields of study. But right now, in all that I have read and watched, the belief in Buddha influencing Jesus is not factual, it is speculative...and interesting.
I would remind you that as science has evolved, scientists working totally independently, sometimes in different parts of the world, have came up with similar inventions...often without any knowledge of each other. The same is often true with historical thought. It's rare that any one person is the only person to have developed a particular train of thought, although such progressions often work off each other.
Apologies, I was only trying to do the best with what I had at hand, and was under the impression that I was being accurate. You don't need to remind me, but thank you - pyramids appearing thousands of miles apart doesn't AUTOMATICALLY denote an alien super-race, or so I keep trying to suggest to my more die-hard conspiracy-theorist friends. ;-)
I see your point, but surely there can be nothing conclusive in this field? Franky, Im uncertain the extent that ANY doctrinal aspect of the Theravadin Tipitika can be referred to as empirical fact, purely as we are unaware of the EXACT language and words spoken by the Buddha, merely that which was recorded in the first assembly, as Im sure you know. Obviously it gets easier when studying Nargajuna, Shantideva etc, but not much I fear...
Am I right in saying that as far as scholastic investigation suggests, most scholars agree that the historical Shakyamuni would have spoken something similar to the early Aryan Sanskrit, but definitely NOT Pali (being as he was of noble birth)?
A good point well made with regards to Right Speech and factual accuracy, but my point stands true (and unacknowledged), and I'm saddened that you see no need to apologise for hurting my feelings or the feelings for others in your quest for factual accuracy.
Skilful actions cannot be those whereby the means negate the ends. Also, your condolences for my loss would have been well received, but that's not a criticism, rather pointing something out you appear to have missed. Please consider reflecting on this, as I too will consider the detriment of generalisations and sweeping statements on a conversation. Thank you for reminding me of this. Traditionally speech must be harmonious, polite, useful AND accurate, I must remind myself of this more often.
Oh, and to answer your question, I don't need to question their biases because they are blindingly obvious. I know that the author of the Zen article is a Buddhist, and the logical conclusion is that anyone willing to write, produce, research, edit and host an hour long documentary debunking the Resurrection is unlikely to be Christian. You are right, everyone has an agenda. However, if the scholars refuting any external influence within the New Testament were agnostic/atheist/Muslim/Jewish etc then I would naturally pore over their findings with more interest than someone with a vested interest in preserving the doctrinal purity and integrity of the Bible, thats all.
Happy to put this to bed, as I've said, I was only trying to provide another forum member with some research material, thats all.
Go in peace :-) xx