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.
They are more compatible than Buddhism and drug taking are compatible.
Buddhism and drug taking have zero compatibility.
:eek2:
Yet another red herring fallacy. This in no way counters my argument. Also, I never said that Buddhism and drug taking are compatible. There are things that I don't consider "intoxicants" (the actual word he used, not drugs) and shrooms are non-toxic. Yet here you are probably consuming all these other drugs/intoxicants like caffiene, aspartame, flouride (in drinking fountains), msg, aspirin, etc.
At funerals, the mystic priest does not say the deceased goes to heaven.
They say the deceased exists in "God's Eternal Memory" (that is, your memory).
:winkc:
Oh really? I didn't know that Christianity accepted that we are all Gods. I thougt that was a lie from Satan. Also, the mystic priest can say what he wants, but it doesnt necessarily mean its indicative of Christian doctrine.
You must be thinking of Gnosticism. And Jesus did actually say that we Gods in John 10:34, however, Orthodox Christianity does NOT accept that man is his own God.
When having discussion, I prefer that people are being honest in their arguments rather than simply trying to counter me. Trying to tell me that Christianity says we are all gods is not going to pass by me and I will call out the dishonesty.
I suggest you read " The Good Heart" in which the Dalai Lama explored the New Testament gospels with Christians and others including Ajahn Amaro of the Theravada Thai Forest tradition.
.
Watch my video in the Buddhism for Beginners forum. Dalai Lama strictly stated that Christianity and Buddhism have different contradictory philosophies. He himself said that, as a Buddhist, he would argue with Jesus Christ.
Of course, he's referring to the Biblical Jesus. I'm sure he would agree alot more with the Gnostic Jesus.
Oh really? I didn't know that Christianity accepted that we are all Gods. I thougt that was a lie from Satan. Also, the mystic priest can say what he wants, but it doesnt necessarily mean its indicative of Christian doctrine.
You must be thinking of Gnosticism. And Jesus did actually say that we Gods in John 10:34, however, Orthodox Christianity does NOT accept that man is his own God.
When having discussion, I prefer that people are being honest in their arguments rather than simply trying to counter me. Trying to tell me that Christianity says we are all gods is not going to pass by me and I will call out the dishonesty.
.
You are providing a very narrow definition of Christianity.
You sound like those that say the only true Buddhism is the supramundane teachings found in the Pali suttas.
You sound like those fundamentalists that heap contempt upon the Heart Sutra.
Someone please tell me, how is that in anyway compatible with the Savior-based Christianity?
47. "Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork, those who have simply faith in me, simply love for me, are all destined for heaven."
I've seen that there are people who call themselves Buddhist Christians or those who try to show how they are compatible.
Below is a teaching with great similarily to the Buddha's dependent origination.
When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire [craving], he is dragged away and enticed . Then, after desire has conceived [becoming], it gives birth [jati] to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death [dukkha].
"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path." - Buddha
Someone please tell me, how is that in anyway compatible with the Savior-based Christianity?.
<SUP>
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? <SUP id=en-NIV-30293 class=versenum></SUP>
Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? <SUP id=en-NIV-30295 class=versenum></SUP>
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. :buck:
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? :-/
Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
There seems to be a lot of hang up on the notion of compatibility or lack thereof between Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhism seems like it might be about freeing oneself from attaching to things, including such notions. If one must insist on clinging to such a notion, maybe it is evidence that they are harboring thoughts, opinions, or ideas that are not compatible with Buddhism as well? Or maybe one is looking only at the surface of the religions and not looking deeply, looking at the words and not the meaning and functions they represent?
It is easy to look at the surface myths surrounding one religion, then compare it to another (whether it's surface or deeper meaning), and you will obviously find little compatibility there. But when you look deeply at both of them, you will see a bigger picture in which they are both right, they just have a different way of saying things, different surfaces. So it would be difficult in seeing compatibility with Christianity and anything if you take a very "fundie" approach to Christianity. But even when you take a fundie approach, they are still compatible. The Buddha taught the cessation of suffering, and it does not infringe on any sort of theist belief someone may hold. You can accept Jesus as the son of god and still understand the four noble truths and practice the noble eightfold path.
Or maybe it depends on the person. If you feel that Buddhism and Christianity are not compatible, then I would suggest that you refrain from trying to mix them in your own practice But many other people find success in doing such a thing, and just because you do not understand how they could fit together doesn't mean that your opinion (that they are not reconcilable) is right or true. I suppose it is true that your current view of Christianity and current view of Buddhism are not reconcilable though, or the discussion would not be here
"I'm Buddhist. As far as philosophy is concerned, I may argue with Jesus Christ. But in practices, I fully appreciate his philosophy, his concept, really useful."
- Dalai Lama
This is not simply an appeal to authority fallacy. This is coming from someone who has spent his entire life studying religion and traveling to other religious grounds and attending service/practicing rituals of other religions.
To say that Buddhism and Christianity have the same philosophy, is an insult to both of them and denying the distinction and uniqueness between them. People seem to think that you can't respect something you disagree with. I simply have to say to Christianity, I respectfully disagree. Just like I respectfully disagree with any of the other philosophies in the world.
Below is a teaching with great similarily to the Buddha's dependent origination.
"When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire [craving], he is dragged away and enticed . Then, after desire has conceived [becoming], it gives birth [jati] to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death [dukkha]. "
Wow, you are really just grasping for straws there. That's a huge stretch. And by the way, death is not dukkha. You aren't suffering when you're dead, you're free from attachment, silent mind free from brain chatter. The fear of death is dukkha, but how can you desire and suffer when you're dead?
Now above we have a Christian that understands Dependent Origination better than 95% of Buddhists.
That's funny. I doubt 95% (to mimic the extremity of your statement) of Christians have even heard of the word, let alone understand Dependent Origination better than Buddhists.
You are providing a very narrow definition of Christianity.
No I'm not. I explicitly specified that I am talking about Orthodox Christianity.
You and many others here keep confusing GNOSTIC Christianity and Orthodox Christianity. Gnostic Christianity is much more in line with Buddhist thought. Orthodox, not even close.
So I acknowledge that a certain form of Christianity is compatible, that is Gnostic Christianity, but Orthodox simply is not.
You sound like those that say the only true Buddhism is the supramundane teachings found in the Pali suttas.
No, actually I am suggesting the true teachings of Christianity are found in the non-canonical, Gnostic Gospels which were cast out of the Bible.
You sound like those fundamentalists that heap contempt upon the Heart Sutra.
Not really. Orthodox Christianity does not accept non-canonical doctrine, especially the Gnostic Gospels. Buddhism is structured much different than Christianity when dealing with canonical and non-canonical.
47. "Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork, those who have simply faith in me, simply love for me, are all destined for heaven."
Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile
:eek:
As Buddha said, do not accept something, even if your religious doctrine says it. And as he taught, I simply have to reject that passage.
Of course, I personally think that there is a language issue here, rather than a disagreement. By "faith" he means that he wants us to have confidence in his status as fully enlightened. Asking to have love for him, could be a call to ask for appreciation and reverence. Isn't "heaven" a realm of consciousness? If so, what he says makes perfect sense.
So getting past the English language barrier, I do accept what he says if interpreted properly.
Wow, you are really just grasping for straws there. That's a huge stretch. And by the way, death is not dukkha. You aren't suffering when you're dead, you're free from attachment, silent mind free from brain chatter. The fear of death is dukkha, but how can you desire and suffer when you're dead?
You need to some lessons in spiritual language.
I can't believe you keep posting the garbage you are posting.
Comparing kindergarten understanding with university level.
Brother.
The Buddha taught Nibbana is the Deathless.
:crazy:
Let's talk about the word "life". This word in everyday language, the language of immature people, applies to anything that is not yet dead, that still exists, moves about, walks, and eats. In the more precise language of biology, it refers the normal functioning of the protoplasm, of the cell and nucleus. The normal functioning and development of these is referred to as "life". This is an even more materialistic kind of everyday language.
In Dhamma language, "life" refers to the truly deathless state, the unconditioned, nibbna, life without limitations. This is life. If we are speaking everyday language, "life'' has the ordinary familiar meaning. If we are speaking Dhamma language, "life" refers to the deathless state. When there is no birth, there is also no death. This state is the unconditioned. It is what we call nibbna, and what in other religions is often spoken of as the life everlasting. It is life that never again comes to an end. It is life in God, or whatever one cares to call it. This is the real life, life as understood in Dhamma language.
Wow, you are really just grasping for straws there. That's a huge stretch. And by the way, death is not dukkha.
TMP
I recommend you read the follow text from Buddha-Dhamma ForStudents, which is suitably named for one such as yourself:
8) Now suppose we are asked about the supreme word in Buddhism,
8) "What is the amatadhamma?"
AMATA MEANS "DEATHLESS"; the amatadhamma is the dhamma (thing or state) that does not die. And what is that?
The Buddha once said, "The cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion is the amata-dhamma."
The amatadhamma is the immortal state, or the immortalizing state. Wherever there is greed, hatred and delusion, that is called the mortal state.
One experiences suffering. One has the self-idea, which causes one to be subject to birth, aging, disease, and death. When greed, hatred, and delusion cease (the ceasing of delusion being the ceasing of ignorance and misunderstanding), then there no longer arises the false concept of selfhood, then there is no more self to die. So if one is searching for the deathless state, the amatadhamma, one must search for the state or condition that is free of greed, hatred and delusion. This is what the Buddha taught. The amatadhamma, as we have so frequently heard, is the ultimate, the highest teaching of Buddhism. The "undying" taught by other teachers is a different amata. But in Buddhism it is, as I have just explained, the cessation of greed, hatred, and delusion.
The Samyutta Nikaya: Division 45: Chapter 7 states:<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
‘The removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion is the designation for the element of Nibbana…. is the Deathless. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way’.
As DD has skillfully shown, there are many passages in the Gospels and the deutero-canonical writings which are compatible with Buddhist thought. For many of us, the message of liberation and engagement that Jesus taught is found all along our way. Others, taking a different way, do not see this. The problem of this debate is that of demanding that theirs is the only path.
Let us look clearly: within Buddhism itself a similar debate rages and has raged for centuries. Different sutras and traditions are attacked or denied. It is our greatest strength that we do not have a normative doctrine. Even what we claim to be our 'core belief' is subject to discussion and disagreement.
Within this tiny segment of Buddhists, fellow-travellers, friends and opponents, have been Christian Buddhists, pagan Buddhists, Pure Land Buddhists and, above all, Protestant Buddhists, where "Protestant" has its original meaning. Even those who demand that we apply a "Pelagian" philosophy of self-sufficiency still appeal to dusty texts hundreds and thousands of years old, and that selectively.
We can quote HHDL on both sides of this argument and it still will not settle the matter.
The truth is this:
Some people here, for their own reasons, want to tell me and those like me that we are not really Buddhists. Well, I say to them:
"Go back to your Vaticans. There'll be no heretic burning here. I deny you the right to twist, interpret or dismiss Scriptures whose validity you reject. I deny you the right to dictate how I follow the path. It is mine and it leads me to liberation. It may be different from yours and you will, no doubt, discover where yours ends up."
Wow, you are really just grasping for straws there. That's a huge stretch. And by the way, death is not dukkha.
Those of you who are Christians or who have read the Bible will be familiar with the story of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that appears at the beginning of Genesis. It tells how God forbade Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He warned them that they would die if they did not obey. If you understand the meaning of this passage, you will understand the core of Buddhism. When there is no knowledge of good and evil, we can't attach to them, we're void and free of dukkha. Once we know about good and evil, we attach to them and must suffer dukkha. The fruit of that tree is this attachment to good and evil. This causes dukkha and dukkha is death, spiritual death.
Adam's children, down through the ages to us, carry this burden of knowing good and evil, the burden of the self that attaches to good and evil and suffers spiritual death. We identify things as good and attach to them. We identify things as bad and detach from them. We are trapped in worldly conditions by our dualistic obsession with good and bad. This is the death of which God warned. Will you heed his warning?
The problem here, it seems to me is one of hermeneutics, i.e. the underpinning beliefs and method by which we read and understand what we read.
The Bible, as sonorous texts and stories, Shakespeare and, even, Enid Blyton or Harriet Beecher Stowe are part of the cultural baggage that some of us carry. We also may know the Greek myths, the stories of King Arthur or the Song of Hiawatha. Each of these adds something to the symbols and metaphors with which we think. They are the disguises that the archetypes use, what Campbell called "The Masks of God".
"Is that really what the text means?" is an unanwerable question. As a poet, I know that my (few) readers find things in my writing that I had not seen for myself.
"Go back to your Vaticans. There'll be no heretic burning here. I deny you the right to twist, interpret or dismiss Scriptures whose validity you reject. I deny you the right to dictate how I follow the path. It is mine and it leads me to liberation. It may be different from yours and you will, no doubt, discover where yours ends up."
"Go back to your Vaticans. There'll be no heretic burning here. I deny you the right to twist, interpret or dismiss Scriptures whose validity you reject. I deny you the right to dictate how I follow the path. It is mine and it leads me to liberation. It may be different from yours and you will, no doubt, discover where yours ends up."
You've put this in quotes. Where'd this come from? It's fantastic! :rockon:
You've put this in quotes. Where'd this come from? It's fantastic! :rockon:
Thank you, Nios. The quote is mine, my response to and rebuttal of those who want to dictate to us and, as Queen Elizabeth I put it, "make windows into men's souls".
Oh really? I didn't know that Christianity accepted that we are all Gods. I thougt that was a lie from Satan. Also, the mystic priest can say what he wants, but it doesnt necessarily mean its indicative of Christian doctrine.
You must be thinking of Gnosticism. And Jesus did actually say that we Gods in John 10:34, however, Orthodox Christianity does NOT accept that man is his own God.
When having discussion, I prefer that people are being honest in their arguments rather than simply trying to counter me. Trying to tell me that Christianity says we are all gods is not going to pass by me and I will call out the dishonesty.
.
I remember reading something from C.S. Lewis's books, where he said, something like, all human beings are potential Gods or that you should look upon your neighbour as the God they will one day become (I can't remember the exact quote, it's been awhile since I read it).
Personally, I think it depends on the Christianity you're talking about, if it's the American Evangelical, only one true way, everyone else is screwed version then, I'd say they're not really compatible, if it's the more liberal forms or Gnostic Christians, or other forms, then, I'd say they are (and, Gnostic Christianity has quite a lot in common with Buddhism, there may have even been Buddhist influence on the development of Christianity).
Thank you, Nios. The quote is mine, my response to and rebuttal of those who want to dictate to us and, as Queen Elizabeth I put it, "make windows into men's souls".
Again, you guys aren't hearing me when I say there is a difference between Gnostic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity. Everytime you mention aspects of Christianity that are compatible with Buddhism, that is getting into Gnostic Christian thought, not Orthodox.
Again, you guys aren't hearing me when I say there is a difference between Gnostic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity. Everytime you mention aspects of Christianity that are compatible with Buddhism, that is getting into Gnostic Christian thought, not Orthodox.
I say, you are not hearing us. Jesus said: "He who has ears, let him hear."
Buddha said: "This is the best of gifts: the gift of Dhamma. And this is the best of friendly speech: to teach again and again Dhamma to those who wish for it and who listen attentively." (AN 9.5)
In Vajrayana Buddhism, the goal is to develop such perfections of mind that, through one's perfect love, one can save others who cannot save themselves.
Of these Bodhisatvas, Jesus is supreme.
This Christianity you disparage has convinced millions of human beings that Jesus has complete love & forgiveness for them.
The Buddha said in the Metta Sutta (The Discourse on Loving-Kindness): "May all beings be at ease".
This is what Jesus has done. He has set the hearts of many beings "at ease", "leaving his peace with them", "making their joy complete". In Vajrayana Buddhism, this is called 'tonglen', namely, 'taking & giving'.
Jesus took away peoples sins via forgiveness and gave his love in return.
Whilst if a Christian (or other) tried to give me the love of Jesus (or Buddha) I personally would simply vomit, this does not mean the Vajrayana Bodhisatva practise of Jesus does not reconcile with Buddhism.
Vajrayana is Mahayana Buddhism, where as you are exhorting Hinayana or Othodox Buddhism.
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you
John 15:11
I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.
John 13:34
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give hislife as a ransom for many.
"Christianity" seems an elusive point of view to analyze from at all. It makes me smile, like when people are asked what "americans" think, or for the "black point of view"
Conceptions built upon a foundation of mud make for poor communion.
Again, you guys aren't hearing me when I say there is a difference between Gnostic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity. Everytime you mention aspects of Christianity that are compatible with Buddhism, that is getting into Gnostic Christian thought, not Orthodox.
What, precisely, do you mean by "Orthodox Christianity"? Are you referring to the Churches of the East and of Russia or are you using 'orthodox' to denote another part of the family of Christianities?
P.S. The Gospel of Thomas is considered by most serious scholars as being pre-Gnostic. Just like the Fourth Gospel ('John'), it has elements that can be loosely called 'gnostic' but is probably earlier than the so-called 'gnostic heresies' - of which there were quite a few. Which school of Gnosticism would you suggest produced the Thomas texts?
Again, you guys aren't hearing me when I say there is a difference between Gnostic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity. Everytime you mention aspects of Christianity that are compatible with Buddhism, that is getting into Gnostic Christian thought, not Orthodox.
So TMP when you said this: " Just like I respectfully disagree with any of the other philosophies in the world." You should have added "...except for Gnostic Christianity which I actually don't mind.
Do you really want to have a debate or do you just want to control all the parameters to ensure you feel like you are winning a debate?;)
As Buddha said, do not accept something, even if your religious doctrine says it. And as he taught, I simply have to reject that passage.
Of course, I personally think that there is a language issue here, rather than a disagreement. By "faith" he means that he wants us to have confidence in his status as fully enlightened. Asking to have love for him, could be a call to ask for appreciation and reverence. Isn't "heaven" a realm of consciousness? If so, what he says makes perfect sense.
So getting past the English language barrier, I do accept what he says if interpreted properly.
This makes it seem like what you mean is Orthordox Christianity is not compatible with your own personal veiw of buddhism. So the statement should be Transmetaphysical Buddhism & Orthordox Christianity: Not reconcilable.
But I simply have to say that Buddhism is not, has not, and never will be compatible with Christianity. The philosophies are entirely different and that's actually something I can appreciate.
.
My initial exposure to Christ and Christianity was through the writings of my mother's teacher, a yogi called Paramhansa Yogananda, who she had met during the 1930's. Yogananda, one of the earlier Easterners to come to the West, spent a lot of time showing the similarities between Christianity and yogic philosophy ... he did so by ignoring the words of the churches and even the words of the apostles, instead focusing only on the words of Jesus. Based on what I learned from Yogananda's writings, it looks to me that Christ was at least a yogi, if not a Buddha.
It's not Jesus's fault if his words have been perverted and misinterpreted over the centuries. I would agree that Christianity is incompatible with Buddhism, but also that Christianity is incompatible with Christ's teachings.
It's not Jesus's fault if his words have been perverted and misinterpreted over the centuries. I would agree that Christianity is incompatible with Buddhism, but also that Christianity is incompatible with Christ's teachings.
Precisely so, FF.And that is why my dear friend and neighbour Hugh McGregor Ross entitled his beautiful edition of the Thomas Gospel Jesus Untouched by the Church.
Based on what I learned from Yogananda's writings, it looks to me that Christ was at least a yogi, if not a Buddha.
It's not Jesus's fault if his words have been perverted and misinterpreted over the centuries. I would agree that Christianity is incompatible with Buddhism, but also that Christianity is incompatible with Christ's teachings.
Agree 100%. There needs to be a distinction between the teachins of Jesus and the teachings of Christianity.
Jesus said that people will not point to the kingdom of God and say "there it is" because the kingdom of God is within you. Yet Christianity teaches that Heaven is a real place.
Agree 100%. There needs to be a distinction between the teachins of Jesus and the teachings of Christianity.
Jesus said that people will not point to the kingdom of God and say "there it is" because the kingdom of God is within you. Yet Christianity teaches that Heaven is a real place.
You keep saying "Christianity" as if it were a single entity, yet we have shown you that it is many. Will you admit that it is a part of the Christian family which holds view you dislike?
I ask you again, TM: what do you understand by Orthodox Christianity?
Interestingly in mormonism they teach that the churches since the time of Christ's death have become "untrue chruches" that lost the "fullness of the gospel". But I'm sure many other churches teach that other churches are incorrect as well... at least its possible they do I don't hve much exposure to Christianity.
Jesus introduced the modern concept of hell. A pretty horrible idea.
Apart from the hell stuff he had some good things to say, but not really anything much greater than any of the other rabbis of the period such as Hillel had to say, and certainly no where near what future rabbis such as Baal Shem Tov had to teach. Christianity became a universal religion due to both accidents of history, and I think the sheer terror of the consequences of rejecting the religion. Buddhism has spread to the west and is becoming universal because people like the ideas and feel that it improves their worldly lives. Thats a pretty significant contrast.
But if you need Jesus and he is a positive force in your life, and you like Buddhism, then by all means, do whatever you want.
All Brahmin/Hindu teachings borrowed from Buddhism because the Buddha was the perfect teacher, with the stainless eye of clear insight.
This expression appears deceptive and slippery. Wouldn't it be more clear to say that the teachers of these other practices have varying levels of clear perceptions of dhamma dhatu, expressing those... as opposed to some objectified "borrowed buddhism"?
This expression appears deceptive and slippery. Wouldn't it be more clear to say that the teachers of these other practices have varying levels of clear perceptions of dhamma dhatu, expressing those... as opposed to some objectified "borrowed buddhism"?
No.
Often we think all the religions arose separately.
This is contrary to the law of cause & effect.
The Buddha himself borrowed concentration meditation to achieve his enlightenment based in wisdom.
The Buddha was a superstar. History attests to this. By the time of Christ, Buddhism had spread to most of the known world, including Greece, Egypt and even Britain I once read somewhere.
It is obvious others borrowed heavily from him (just like Buddha borrowed from those before him).
My impression is you have never studied the Buddha's words to discern how clearly he looked into and described reality.
Really...there is nothing that compares. Nothing even comes close.
He was a genius of spiritual, mental, social and moral science.
Comments
Yet another red herring fallacy. This in no way counters my argument. Also, I never said that Buddhism and drug taking are compatible. There are things that I don't consider "intoxicants" (the actual word he used, not drugs) and shrooms are non-toxic. Yet here you are probably consuming all these other drugs/intoxicants like caffiene, aspartame, flouride (in drinking fountains), msg, aspirin, etc.
Oh really? I didn't know that Christianity accepted that we are all Gods. I thougt that was a lie from Satan. Also, the mystic priest can say what he wants, but it doesnt necessarily mean its indicative of Christian doctrine.
You must be thinking of Gnosticism. And Jesus did actually say that we Gods in John 10:34, however, Orthodox Christianity does NOT accept that man is his own God.
When having discussion, I prefer that people are being honest in their arguments rather than simply trying to counter me. Trying to tell me that Christianity says we are all gods is not going to pass by me and I will call out the dishonesty.
.
Watch my video in the Buddhism for Beginners forum. Dalai Lama strictly stated that Christianity and Buddhism have different contradictory philosophies. He himself said that, as a Buddhist, he would argue with Jesus Christ.
Of course, he's referring to the Biblical Jesus. I'm sure he would agree alot more with the Gnostic Jesus.
Someone please tell me, how is that in anyway compatible with the Savior-based Christianity?
.
Luke 14:27 "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
You sound like those that say the only true Buddhism is the supramundane teachings found in the Pali suttas.
You sound like those fundamentalists that heap contempt upon the Heart Sutra.
:buck:
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
Matthew 7:14
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
John 5:8
Then Jesus said to him, "Get up! Pick up your mat and walk."
Matthew 5:48
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
:eek:
Now above we have a Christian that understands Dependent Origination better than 95% of Buddhists.
<SUP>
It is easy to look at the surface myths surrounding one religion, then compare it to another (whether it's surface or deeper meaning), and you will obviously find little compatibility there. But when you look deeply at both of them, you will see a bigger picture in which they are both right, they just have a different way of saying things, different surfaces. So it would be difficult in seeing compatibility with Christianity and anything if you take a very "fundie" approach to Christianity. But even when you take a fundie approach, they are still compatible. The Buddha taught the cessation of suffering, and it does not infringe on any sort of theist belief someone may hold. You can accept Jesus as the son of god and still understand the four noble truths and practice the noble eightfold path.
Or maybe it depends on the person. If you feel that Buddhism and Christianity are not compatible, then I would suggest that you refrain from trying to mix them in your own practice
Well I've learned something. I should focus on my drug taking as a conundrum rather than my faith in other things.
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5507
- Dalai Lama
This is not simply an appeal to authority fallacy. This is coming from someone who has spent his entire life studying religion and traveling to other religious grounds and attending service/practicing rituals of other religions.
To say that Buddhism and Christianity have the same philosophy, is an insult to both of them and denying the distinction and uniqueness between them. People seem to think that you can't respect something you disagree with. I simply have to say to Christianity, I respectfully disagree. Just like I respectfully disagree with any of the other philosophies in the world.
.
Wow, you are really just grasping for straws there. That's a huge stretch. And by the way, death is not dukkha. You aren't suffering when you're dead, you're free from attachment, silent mind free from brain chatter. The fear of death is dukkha, but how can you desire and suffer when you're dead?
That's funny. I doubt 95% (to mimic the extremity of your statement) of Christians have even heard of the word, let alone understand Dependent Origination better than Buddhists.
No I'm not. I explicitly specified that I am talking about Orthodox Christianity.
You and many others here keep confusing GNOSTIC Christianity and Orthodox Christianity. Gnostic Christianity is much more in line with Buddhist thought. Orthodox, not even close.
So I acknowledge that a certain form of Christianity is compatible, that is Gnostic Christianity, but Orthodox simply is not.
No, actually I am suggesting the true teachings of Christianity are found in the non-canonical, Gnostic Gospels which were cast out of the Bible.
Not really. Orthodox Christianity does not accept non-canonical doctrine, especially the Gnostic Gospels. Buddhism is structured much different than Christianity when dealing with canonical and non-canonical.
.
As Buddha said, do not accept something, even if your religious doctrine says it. And as he taught, I simply have to reject that passage.
Of course, I personally think that there is a language issue here, rather than a disagreement. By "faith" he means that he wants us to have confidence in his status as fully enlightened. Asking to have love for him, could be a call to ask for appreciation and reverence. Isn't "heaven" a realm of consciousness? If so, what he says makes perfect sense.
So getting past the English language barrier, I do accept what he says if interpreted properly.
You need to some lessons in spiritual language.
I can't believe you keep posting the garbage you are posting.
Comparing kindergarten understanding with university level.
Brother.
The Buddha taught Nibbana is the Deathless.
:crazy:
For example, you think the buddha taught Nibbana is a permanent endless consciousness.
Many people are unenlightened but love the Buddha, just like many unenlightened people love the Dalai Lama.
Due to the Buddha's love & virtue, he made many many people happy, just like those who dwell in the Dalai Lama's light are often happy.
This happiness is 'heaven'. Pali = sugati or 'the happy state'.
Because you do not understand happiness via faith, you cannot understand Christianity let alone Vajrayana Buddhism.
Jesus taught two fold: (1) Hinayana or Catholic, for practitioners; and (2) Vajrayana or Protestant, for devotees.
Each religion has two kinds of followers, namely, practitioners and faith followers.
Each religion has a place for both.
I recommend you read the follow text from Buddha-Dhamma For Students, which is suitably named for one such as yourself:
:coffee:
The Samyutta Nikaya: Division 45: Chapter 7 states:<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
‘The removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion is the designation for the element of Nibbana…. is the Deathless. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way’.
<O:p:)</O:p
Let us look clearly: within Buddhism itself a similar debate rages and has raged for centuries. Different sutras and traditions are attacked or denied. It is our greatest strength that we do not have a normative doctrine. Even what we claim to be our 'core belief' is subject to discussion and disagreement.
Within this tiny segment of Buddhists, fellow-travellers, friends and opponents, have been Christian Buddhists, pagan Buddhists, Pure Land Buddhists and, above all, Protestant Buddhists, where "Protestant" has its original meaning. Even those who demand that we apply a "Pelagian" philosophy of self-sufficiency still appeal to dusty texts hundreds and thousands of years old, and that selectively.
We can quote HHDL on both sides of this argument and it still will not settle the matter.
The truth is this:
Some people here, for their own reasons, want to tell me and those like me that we are not really Buddhists. Well, I say to them:
"Go back to your Vaticans. There'll be no heretic burning here. I deny you the right to twist, interpret or dismiss Scriptures whose validity you reject. I deny you the right to dictate how I follow the path. It is mine and it leads me to liberation. It may be different from yours and you will, no doubt, discover where yours ends up."
The Zen masters say: "Empty your tea cup". :coffee:
:coffee:
The Bible, as sonorous texts and stories, Shakespeare and, even, Enid Blyton or Harriet Beecher Stowe are part of the cultural baggage that some of us carry. We also may know the Greek myths, the stories of King Arthur or the Song of Hiawatha. Each of these adds something to the symbols and metaphors with which we think. They are the disguises that the archetypes use, what Campbell called "The Masks of God".
"Is that really what the text means?" is an unanwerable question. As a poet, I know that my (few) readers find things in my writing that I had not seen for myself.
I love Campbell. I am reading The Hero with a Thousand Faces right now, very good book
You've put this in quotes. Where'd this come from? It's fantastic! :rockon:
Thank you, Nios. The quote is mine, my response to and rebuttal of those who want to dictate to us and, as Queen Elizabeth I put it, "make windows into men's souls".
I remember reading something from C.S. Lewis's books, where he said, something like, all human beings are potential Gods or that you should look upon your neighbour as the God they will one day become (I can't remember the exact quote, it's been awhile since I read it).
Personally, I think it depends on the Christianity you're talking about, if it's the American Evangelical, only one true way, everyone else is screwed version then, I'd say they're not really compatible, if it's the more liberal forms or Gnostic Christians, or other forms, then, I'd say they are (and, Gnostic Christianity has quite a lot in common with Buddhism, there may have even been Buddhist influence on the development of Christianity).
Mind if I use it?
http://www.antiochian.org/node/16916
You are welcome to do so. I should be honoured.
Buddha said: "This is the best of gifts: the gift of Dhamma. And this is the best of friendly speech: to teach again and again Dhamma to those who wish for it and who listen attentively." (AN 9.5)
In Vajrayana Buddhism, the goal is to develop such perfections of mind that, through one's perfect love, one can save others who cannot save themselves.
Of these Bodhisatvas, Jesus is supreme.
This Christianity you disparage has convinced millions of human beings that Jesus has complete love & forgiveness for them.
The Buddha said in the Metta Sutta (The Discourse on Loving-Kindness): "May all beings be at ease".
This is what Jesus has done. He has set the hearts of many beings "at ease", "leaving his peace with them", "making their joy complete". In Vajrayana Buddhism, this is called 'tonglen', namely, 'taking & giving'.
Jesus took away peoples sins via forgiveness and gave his love in return.
Whilst if a Christian (or other) tried to give me the love of Jesus (or Buddha) I personally would simply vomit, this does not mean the Vajrayana Bodhisatva practise of Jesus does not reconcile with Buddhism.
Vajrayana is Mahayana Buddhism, where as you are exhorting Hinayana or Othodox Buddhism.
John 14:27
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you
John 15:11
I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.
John 13:34
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Conceptions built upon a foundation of mud make for poor communion.
With warmth,
Matt
What, precisely, do you mean by "Orthodox Christianity"? Are you referring to the Churches of the East and of Russia or are you using 'orthodox' to denote another part of the family of Christianities?
So TMP when you said this: " Just like I respectfully disagree with any of the other philosophies in the world." You should have added "...except for Gnostic Christianity which I actually don't mind.
Do you really want to have a debate or do you just want to control all the parameters to ensure you feel like you are winning a debate?;)
This makes it seem like what you mean is Orthordox Christianity is not compatible with your own personal veiw of buddhism. So the statement should be Transmetaphysical Buddhism & Orthordox Christianity: Not reconcilable.
My initial exposure to Christ and Christianity was through the writings of my mother's teacher, a yogi called Paramhansa Yogananda, who she had met during the 1930's. Yogananda, one of the earlier Easterners to come to the West, spent a lot of time showing the similarities between Christianity and yogic philosophy ... he did so by ignoring the words of the churches and even the words of the apostles, instead focusing only on the words of Jesus. Based on what I learned from Yogananda's writings, it looks to me that Christ was at least a yogi, if not a Buddha.
It's not Jesus's fault if his words have been perverted and misinterpreted over the centuries. I would agree that Christianity is incompatible with Buddhism, but also that Christianity is incompatible with Christ's teachings.
Precisely so, FF.And that is why my dear friend and neighbour Hugh McGregor Ross entitled his beautiful edition of the Thomas Gospel Jesus Untouched by the Church.
Agree 100%. There needs to be a distinction between the teachins of Jesus and the teachings of Christianity.
Jesus said that people will not point to the kingdom of God and say "there it is" because the kingdom of God is within you. Yet Christianity teaches that Heaven is a real place.
You keep saying "Christianity" as if it were a single entity, yet we have shown you that it is many. Will you admit that it is a part of the Christian family which holds view you dislike?
I ask you again, TM: what do you understand by Orthodox Christianity?
Brahma is the "Father of the All". The word "Abba" is the same as the Hindu word "Baba".
The salient teaching of Jesus is what is known in Buddhism as "Brahma Vihara".
All Brahmin/Hindu teachings borrowed from Buddhism because the Buddha was the perfect teacher, with the stainless eye of clear insight.
For example, the Bhagavad Gita strongly teaches non-attachment despite retaining the epistemology of 'God'.
Jesus was the same. He borrowed non-violence, purity, unconditional love, etc, from Buddhism but retained a theistic framework.
Let go of obsession with Christianity, including the Gnostic Gospels.
This obsession is the mind's former conditioning or Christian brainwashing.
There is very little of importance that can be reconciled between B & C.
There are some moral & mind similarities but not wisdom.
Buddhism teaches all things, mind, matter & nibbana, are nature; simply natural elements or dhamma dhatu.
Seeing clearly the true naure of a tree, rock or cloud is much more beneficial than reflecting on Jesus.
Let it go. Enough of this obsession.
Apart from the hell stuff he had some good things to say, but not really anything much greater than any of the other rabbis of the period such as Hillel had to say, and certainly no where near what future rabbis such as Baal Shem Tov had to teach. Christianity became a universal religion due to both accidents of history, and I think the sheer terror of the consequences of rejecting the religion. Buddhism has spread to the west and is becoming universal because people like the ideas and feel that it improves their worldly lives. Thats a pretty significant contrast.
But if you need Jesus and he is a positive force in your life, and you like Buddhism, then by all means, do whatever you want.
...or "Lord Buddha"
This expression appears deceptive and slippery. Wouldn't it be more clear to say that the teachers of these other practices have varying levels of clear perceptions of dhamma dhatu, expressing those... as opposed to some objectified "borrowed buddhism"?
With warmth,
Matt
Often we think all the religions arose separately.
This is contrary to the law of cause & effect.
The Buddha himself borrowed concentration meditation to achieve his enlightenment based in wisdom.
The Buddha was a superstar. History attests to this. By the time of Christ, Buddhism had spread to most of the known world, including Greece, Egypt and even Britain I once read somewhere.
It is obvious others borrowed heavily from him (just like Buddha borrowed from those before him).
My impression is you have never studied the Buddha's words to discern how clearly he looked into and described reality.
Really...there is nothing that compares. Nothing even comes close.
He was a genius of spiritual, mental, social and moral science.
Look here at your own risk!
:eek: