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.
Jesus and Buddha
Kruise
New
Thanks for all the replies to the other posts of mine by the way, this site has been a big help so far!
I have looked this up a few times on the internet and saw a couple things here and there but I wanted to ask the people here: Is it okay to be a christian who follows the Buddhist philosophy? Anytime I bring it up with my mother she i immediately dismisses it but I don't get why? I am usually quick to get angry but when meditating and instilling the things I learn from Buddhism I find myself anew. Happy, peaceful, helpful! (She could learn how to be like that xD) But I guess it seems that a Buddhist person would find it easier to accept a christian then the other way around.
Just wondering what you guys think about it. 
0
Comments
Do what works for you. Why care what works for other people? And why should they have a problem with what you do? You've got your own life, your own problems, don't let other people's problems become your own.
Aldris hit the nail right on the head.
It works more easily, I think, if you are a secular Buddhist, but here's how I look at it --
who cares where wisdom comes from? If there is wisdom in a Buddhist teaching -- peachy keen. If there is wisdom in a Christian teaching -- peachy keen. If there is wisdom something Groucho Marx said -- peachy keen. If it's wise, it's wise.
Namate,
I agree with Aldris above. I myself am a Jew and follow the Buddha's teachings.
Thich Nhat Hanh wrote a great book on Buddhism and Christianity called Living Buddha, Living Christ. Check it out, it's a great read.
Metta,
Raven
_ /\ _
I read somewhere recently that "very few people get everything right and very few get everything wrong". Meaning that these lines of division are pretty artificial. Try for yourself, do not worry so much about the labels.
Many other people mix the two and as far as I know they aren't being punished for it.
Some will tell you they fear for your soul but I think they fear being wrong. I like to tell them not to worry because if I am right they won't be punished but if they are right they will get their brownie points for trying to save me by having this little conversation.
Many people do combine the two and belief in other deities too.
It is most often from Christian side that such mixing if frowned upon.
But if you live in an Asian country the dislike from Buddhist parents will probably have to do more with cultural belonging rather than the actual belief in Jesus.
/Victor
There is a difference between Christianity and Buddhism at the very beginning you should be aware of; Christianity asserts a separate omnipotent God, a creator God, while Buddhism does not acknowledge or perhaps even 'believe' in an outside God type being.
@Victorious has it right, that mixing the two is more likely to offend Christians than Buddhists, the latter of whom cherry pick Christian teachings -- an anathema to Christians.
It is like having your feet in two different train tracks. I think I do it, but I have non-conceptual understanding of Christianity just with Jesus as a transcendent Buddha of love. I think the branching tracks meet up again further down the line. So that is good news.
@Kruise
my mom is the same way she believes in Christ and says how she regrets not shoving religion down me and my other sisters thoughts. my middle sister is pagan...i have my heart in Buddhism....my oldest sister believes in Christ and i have other family members in other religions too like Muslim and Hinduism . and my mom get Jehovah's all over my case about my choice ... but i tell them i believe in what i believe and you believe in what you believe ..then i tell them what the Dalai Lama says
Nice.
We are walking in many moccasins, many tracks simultaneously. It is possible (Jesus and or Buddha knows how) to hold paradoxical, contrary aspects of being in mind and transcend their apparent contradictions.
For example the Islamic Sufi Buddhists say, 'There is no Buddha but Buddha'. In other words Buddha is Allah but Allah is no-Buddha.
As I always say to Jesus: 'What you doing on that cross boy? Did nobody teach you carpentry? When is my table ready?'
Hope that is helpful . . . otherwise I am off to hell . . . picnics to attend . . .
:crazy: .
Well, I think it depends how seriously you want to be a Christian and what parts of Christianity you want to adhere to, and similarly for Buddhism.
Obviously if you want to become a monastic (in either Christianity or Buddhism), you can't really be too entrenched in the other.
However, if you're just a householder who finds solace in both teachings, I don't see why there's any problem, so long as it works for you. But as @Hamsaka said, there are some distinct differences (e.g. concept of God, universe, sin, etc) that may cause some conflict.
@Kruise
It is sometimes useful to explore the nature of blasphemy in Buddhism. It may require a look at what and why we revere or feel something or someone is sacred.
It is a good policy not to aggravate the Christian mums, born again Buddhists and other fundamentalists.
We should if possible be kind to baby Jesus, Buddha babes and Tibetan Nagas (if available).
In other words, travel where you will. You may be on a path of discovery that takes you to strange interior revelations about the nature of Almighty Cod (the fish is a sign of the enlightened as well as Christ).
Don't mind the jabbering heretics, we have our journeying too . . . :wave: .
Many fine and articulate Christians have found no difficulty in combining Christianity or Judaism with Buddhism. Those of us who do are, in all probability, those who hold that, as Scripture teaches us, God is unknowable anyway. It is worth considering that, when Jesus asked one questioner about the Law, the answer was only the 'social' commandments. Whilst many Western Buddhists like to assert that Buddhism denies the existence of God, the God that they are, on the whole, denying is one of their own imagining and very far from the ineffable and unknowable Ha-Shem. If such deeply committed Christians as Thomas Merton or Brother David Steingl-Rast find no contradiction, who am I to impose an artificial distinction?
It has been my experience over the decades that many of those who criticise Christian or Jewish Buddhists (largely the former) do so from their own experience of some local, personal experience of exclusive religious thought imposed on them, usually in childhood. Saint Paul suggests that we should put away childish things. For those who are genuinely interested in deepening inter-faith dialogue so that all may learn more and profit more fruitfully, and wish to do so from a Buddhist point of view, I recommend the work of Masao Abe.
There's no problem mixing Christian and Buddhist practice. Most extant religions have elements found in or borrowed from other belief sustems.
I predict that if we ever have a truly western form of Buddhism that it will be a Buddhist/Christian hybrid.
Dunno about that. Have you seen any attempt at this yet? I think it's more likely that "Western" Buddhism will end up being the Secular Buddhism that is already "a thing" here in the States. That's where I'd place my bets. People take Christianity pretty seriously here so they probably wouldn't meld it with Buddhism doctrinally (though as individuals, sure!).
Secular Buddhism may just be the Zen of the West.
You can put Buddhism into the Christian, but you can't put Christianity into the Buddhist.
Christians can fully incorporate the Dhamma into their practice, (As did Thomas Merton and Brother David Steingl-Rast) but Buddhists cannot fully incorporate a God-driven religion into their practice (Ask the Dalai Lama ["The Good Heart"] and TNH.["Living Buddha living Christ"] )
God, I hope not.
(this was the thought that slammed into my head the moment I read your post. No warranty or guarantee that I even agree with it)
I am willing, oh yes. I am also being honest about how I can't put the two together in my head from the git go. Crucifixion, resurrection, died for me some 2000 years later? Eating the blood and body? I will have to get a lot more enlightened before I can touch that with a ten foot pole. But like I said, I'm willing.
This a better way of saying what I was trying to say. Christianity is at it core an exclusive religion, you are either in or you are out. I can understand (and would encourage) Christians to incorporate Buddhism into their devotional practices and wisdom.
Buddhism is heretical and 'depressing' according to a Christian friend, who cannot tolerate the idea there is not some omniscient loving God-being-person out there for her to devote her life to. Buddhism to her sounded empty and existentially awful.
To accept the task of 'believing' in an actual God-being-person, and develop a relationship with such an entity to a Buddhist from birth must be equally hard.
For me I do cherry pick but the foundations of a religion ought not to be cherry picked. It would be like undermining the foundation of a home.
Can you legitimately (and respectfully) call yourself a Christian if you 'have no opinion' on the divinity of Jesus and his resurrection? It seems more respectful to Christians (to whom it would matter a lot) to simply consider Jesus one of your teachers and seek to live your life as he said.
I doubt that very much, given that most Buddhists are atheists and that the trend is towards increasing secularism.
This might be worth a look: https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/996684-living-buddha-living-christ
OK let's manifest the pole.
Crucifixion is an excellent enactment of the dogma of dukkha. Even Gods have to suffer for their karma . . . or ours if they are Boddhisatvahs . . .
Resurrection. Ah Nirvana, the deathless. Wonderful stuff.
Eating blood and body, no more weird than some Tantric ingestions.
The body of Buddha is Christ . . . or is it the other way around . . .
Could it go secular too? Sure. Sort of Protestant Buddhists . . .
>
So I looked, and at the risk of sounding argumentative, I didn't really see anything there that struck me between the eyes as an 'ahaah!' statement.
Having read the book, neither did I, but I though it might be of interest to people who combine Christianity and Buddhism.
Trends are volitile and tend to ebb and flow. There may be a trend towards secularization in Buddhism right now, but none of us know, for sure, what the future may bring. The secular "movement" could be little more than a fad. It may add something lasting to the development of of Buddhism in the west and may not.
Whatever happens, it won't happen in our lifetime, Norm. It will take centuries. Those "athetist" Buddhists of today will be dead, and gone. Christianity and Buddhism will go on. Both will change.
One of my jobs involved trend analysis which is something of a black art, so I'd agree it's difficult to predict far into the future! There is a small but growing movement of non-theist Christians, so even Christianity isn't immune from secularism.
Is it okay to who, @Kruise? It should be okay for you!
You might find that you like things from several religions and mix-match works perfectly right for you. And if that works for YOU, why should you care what anyone else has to say about it?
I am 43 years-old. Despite growing up in a Catholic household and school, I have been a Buddhist since I can remember. No mix-match here.
I simply knew Buddhism, just Buddhism was my thing, and don't fear to define myself as Buddhist if anyone asks.
Can you believe my Catholic mother, after over thirty years, still does not take my Buddhism seriously???? I can't mention the name "Buddha" without getting a look of contempt.
Last time she visited me here, she flew with a Jewish woman who lived in Israel.
She found a boon companion who mentioned something like "we're losing so many of ours to Buddhism, too."
Nutshell is, you don't need to define yourself by any label if you don't feel like it.
And if you do, why should you care what other people, even your mother, might think?
But that last sentence -- that's the key right there. That's all it takes...as Thomas Jefferson pointed out.
I simply knew Buddhism,
Precisely my experience. As a child, not knowing that there was even such a thing as Buddhism, I read the Bible by myself and interpreted it the way I read it - rather than the way it is taught perhaps. I never did find anything in the New Testament that seemed to conflict with my inherent belief systems.
A few months ago, a Christian pastor and I were sitting down having coffee together and he asked me if I was Christian. My response was that I've never met a Christian that would say that I am, but I think Jesus might. I stand by that statement.
I have a Christian friend who considers herself blessed to have been spared the influences of American Evangelicism, and I said almost the same thing to her. I wouldn't call myself a Christian to other Christians, but I'm not sure Christians are the legitimate judges of who's one and who's not.
I'm kind of late to the party, but I second what @Simonthepilgrim said. I'm almost finished reading Thomas Merton's The Seven Storey Mountain, and have recently spent some time at a Trappist monastery where they've incorporated Zen-style meditation with centering prayer, and can say that I see little reason why you can't be a Christian who follows the Buddhist philosophy. In addition, here's something I shared at DhammaWheel today in a similar discussion:
I hate to admit it (both because of the critical things I've said about Christianity in the past as well as because of the criticism I'll potentially receive by some Buddhists presently), but I've recently find myself comparing aspects of Christianity and Buddhism and finding them less antagonistic than I once did, greatly expanding my understanding and appreciation of the former, particularly the more contemplative and mystical aspects relating to living a spiritual life.
In The Seven Storey Mountain, for example, Thomas Merton writes about seeing his father in the hospital near the end of his life and the suffering he experienced, a suffering characteristic of people 'without faith' in the presence of war, disease, pain, starvation, suffering, plague, bombardment, and death” (91), which immediately reminded of the first noble truth: “Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering — in short, suffering is the five categories of clinging objects” (SN 56.11).
Later on, when describing his month-long attempt to devote himself to St. Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises, he recollects that he was mildly appalled by St. Ignatius' notion of indifference to all created things in themselves: “Wherefore it is necessary that we make ourselves indifferent to all created things, in so far as it is permitted to our free will…in such a way that, as far as we are concerned, we should not desire health rather than sickness, riches rather than poverty, honor rather than ignominy, a long life rather than a short life, and so on, desiring and choosing only these things which more efficaciously lead us to the end for which we were created” (294). Which is strikingly similar to the Buddha's teachings on the middle way between sensual indulgence and self-mortification and dispassion towards the conditioned.
Even one of the more controversial teachings of the Buddha, that of anatta or not-self, has it's parallels in Christianity. Merton speaks of the inescapable anguish arising from of the “shame at the inescapable stigma of our sins” as long as there's any self-love left in us, that, “Only when all pride, all self-love has been consumed in our souls by the love of God, are we delivered from the things which is the subject of those torments” (323). And in the book In the Spirit of Happiness by the monks of New Skete, while discussing the real meaning of asceticism and some of the more 'negative' sounding passages in the New Testament like Mark 8:34-35 and John 12:24-25, they mention that:
Both of which I think are apt descriptions of the proper use of the teachings on not-self, albeit in Christian terminology—an approach that's quite similar to the way Thanissaro Bhikkhu approaches the teachings on not-self in his short book Selves & Not-selves.
I'd say that what 'dies' during awakening in the Buddhist context is a self built on, or influenced by, ignorance and the defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion; and what's left is a mind that's liberated, unbound, freed from grasping and self-centeredness, and expressive of love, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. Nibbana, then, isn't a kind of annihilation or state of nothingness as I think many mistakenly believe it to be based upon the numerous 'negative' references as to what it's not; it's the experience of the fullness of life free from the suffering that arise from clinging.
Where God fits into this, I can't say for certain; but it's interesting that nibbana, the final goal of the path to liberation, and which is ineffable and beyond concepts and language, is described in terms like the deathless, the unborn, the unbecome, the unmade, the unfabricated. And the Dhamma that the Buddha teaches should be our island, our refuge, and which his teachings point towards, is none other than the laws of nature, the reality of things are they truly are, truth. If that's not an apt definition of God, I don't know what is.
I suppose that in Christianity, I see these ideas presented from a more revelatory point of view, arising out of a peculiar Semitic culture (and later, Greco-Roman), replete with its own religious traditions and worldviews in which they're framed. And in Buddhism, I see these ideas presented from a more philosophical and/or empirical point of view, arising out a peculiar Indic culture, replete with its own religious traditions and worldview in which they're framed.
^^^ Thanks @Jason. You have tapped into our kin and fellow travellers, the mystics and Gnostics of Christianity. It was studying Buddhism that helped me to understand what Christianity could be and for a Noble few is. Ignorance v knowing . . .
:thumbsup: .
Thank you, @Jason. You make my point with your usual eloquence. Reading you makes it clear that there is real similarity between the Western Buddhist 'objection' to the sort of 'folk Christianity' practised so widely and the same sort of objection that I have come across among intellectual ex-Buddhists from trhe East.
What happens to a 'spiritual' discipline is that it is quickly taught to children. In order to do that, the ideas are simplified and squeezed until all the true 'juice' is removed because the truth originally taught is just too difficult. The problem is that, unlike mathematics or music or any academic discipline, the teaching rarely goes beyond 'grade school' stories.
This becomes clear when we begin deeper study but, for some reason, Christian pastors rarely take seriously their task of deepening their people's understanding of, for example, what is meant by "denial of self" or kenosis. Of course, I have said, many times, that the fact that Christian doctrine and ideas is now only taught in the vernacular denies Christians access to the original languages of the Gospels and epistles. This is less so in Buddhism where, even if many notions are translated, we acknowledge that terms like dukkha are virtually untranslatable.
Like Dawkins et al., many of those who write against Christianity or Judaism are setting up straw men of their own imperfect understanding. The truth is far more diverse, deeper and more mysterious.
@Jason. It sounds as though you are beginning the first steps on the journey to spiritual maturity.
Yes, the first steps on a journey I began decades ago. Glad to see I'm finally making progress.
I suppose I've finally reached a point where I think it's far more advantageous to focus on the similarities and things religious traditions have in common than their differences, and where I'm more receptive to those commonalities.
If you'll pardon my bluntness, I think it quite astounding that a person of your intelligence, insight and comprehension has taken this long.
Here, here.
.
Are we being wikid? I feel the original compliment was meant with sincerity and kindness . . .
It is always a blessing when we can let go of preconceptions and prejudices on our journey. they are "no wanted on the voyage".
I don't think so. For one, I've been doing this for years, branching out and reading about other traditions, philosophies, and visiting other groups; and it takes time to get through the superficial trappings and reach the 'true juice' to steal a phrase from Simon. Although it's taken me a long time to do this with Christianity, partially because of the issues I have with some of the social teachings that translate into policies affecting secular society such as restricting women's choices regarding reproductive health, banning same-sex marriages, etc.
That said, I think Christianity has a solid spiritual core that I'm learning to recognize and appreciate. One of the things I appreciate about this site is how supportive and encouraging most members are when it comes to this kind of thing. I've had less positive responses elsewhere, and I think its a shame. But then, I was also quite the sectarian not so long ago.
I hate to say this but the things you mention (restricting women's choices regarding reproductive health, banning same-sex marriages) are not doctrinal. They're imposed by Religious authorities, If they were truly Doctrinal, then ALL Religions adhering to Religious Biblical tenets would instruct the same things. It's all down to interpretation.
Christianity per se does not adhere to such narrow views and biased concepts. those purporting to teach and preach Christianity, interpret these themes according to their own bias and prejudice.
The Love of God transcends such blinkered views. Frankly, I doubt very much Jesus preached anything against the rights of women regarding reproductive health, and Jesus never declared anything to do with homosexuality as being wrong or sinful....
It's not the Religion. It's the chumps at the helm.
My mother, in all her 82 years, (being Italian born and bred) has always practised Christianity via Roman Catholicism. In the past few months she has been attending Mass at a church of a different denomination, because the new priest at the Catholic church she attended, had stringent views on many matters my mother found impossible to accept or tolerate. in fact, it seems his congregation has been fairly reduced since he joined the parish.
Yes, I understand the difference, which is why I said "partially because of the issues I have with some of the social teachings [of the church] that translate into policies affecting secular society."
However, while many of those teachings stem from the religious dogma of Christian institutions, such as the Roman Catholic Church, rather than the Bible, it can't be denied that they have at least some basis in doctrine. There are a number of passages from both the Old and New Testament that place rather strict social restrictions upon women and condemn same-sex sexual relationships. Just because Jesus didn't say them doesn't mean they haven't historically been an integral part of Christian dogma.
Of course, many churches are moving away from them, particularly many Lutheran and Presbyterian denominations, which I think is good. But the ones I'm more interested, those with the most well-developed ascetic and mystical traditions, are also the ones that are less socially progressive; and it's just taken me a while to get past that.
Treat it like Buddhism: What sits well with you, and what doesn't?
What does, accept. What doesnt - leave aside.
The problem with that option, is that while in Buddhism, it's perfectly OK to do that, and awful lot of God-following traditions do not always look well on such personal flexibility....
…Like Dawkins et al., many of those who write against Christianity or Judaism are setting up straw men of their own imperfect understanding. The truth is far more diverse, deeper and more mysterious.
There is huge diversity. A Sufi mystic is nothing like a hatred-preaching-Mullah and Meister Eckhart is not quite like the Christian right in the US.
But Dawkins does not set up a straw man. He argues against a real and common type of belief in God.
I think broad-minded Buddhists (that’s us?), Christians and Muslims have a choice. We can defend “our” fundamentalists as our misguided brothers and sisters against non-believers, or we can be shoulder to shoulder with moderate people and join their cause of humanity and reason and freedom of thought.
I just know that I’m happy with Dawkins because he has the courage to speak out against religious nonsense.
True. However when arguing against Quantum Mechanics, scientists do not argue with Hollywood or sci fi writers. They argue with the experts.
Dawkins is going for the soft option if not the straw man. So he is not using the scientific method.
Most mystics, who are the experts or knowers of God are not so easy to dismiss with his populist ideology as he probably knows. :wave: .
Probably for Dawkins the whole debate with Christians started on the subject of evolutionary biology.
I don’t know what a mystic would have to say on that matter.
A mystical debate; what is that anyway?
Real knowers of God tend to be pretty silent about Him?
I think Dawkins does an effective hatchet job on the traditional view of "God". But of course the traditional view is not the only one.
That's the thing with many atheists when they rally against the idea of ultimate being... It's always the Abrahamic creator, God.
Yes, but that's probably because the Abrahamic God has become the dominant version of monotheism.
And historically polytheism was largely suppressed and absorbed by the monotheists, like when Christians arrived in Britain and took over all the pagan sites and festivals.
So why doesn't Dawkins go after Brahman? Despite much belief to the contrary, Hinduism is monotheism.
Give him time.
My guess is that he didn't know enough about Hinduism to deal with that too. Hinduism seems to both monotheist and polytheist as far as I can see.
People tend to go after what's dominant in their culture and/or causing problems (like Christianity in America, because that's what people are attempting to insert into government and education, often to block equal rights (e.g. same-sex marriage)). There are too many religions for it to become a thing to try and disprove each in turn, and it's the believers who have the burden of proof... esp. when they're trying to force those beliefs on others. Atheism isn't just disbelief in monotheistic gods, so restricting it to monotheistic religions would only obfuscate the staggering reality of how many gods humans have worshiped (thousands upon thousands).
I suspect that because England is officially Christian (Church of England), that's what Dawkins is most familiar with. What he says about faith-based beliefs applies generally to all manner of unjustified claims. The "new atheists" are really focusing on two things: Skepticism of unjustified beliefs (faith), and Criticism of harm caused because of those beliefs (which is why/when they're angry, and rightly so!).
I actually prefer Sam Harris; he's into the Buddhist flavour of spirituality, and meditation. I've been an "agnostic atheist" my entire life, so I'd be happy to discuss and clarify, so long as there's no trolling (the misconceptions about atheism run deep, deep, deep).