Can a Christian be a Buddhist? Vice-versa?

[NikolaiI]

This is something that's very interesting to me, and I'd love to have some intelligent conversations about it on here, surely with people of various faiths.

It's something I'm not sure I've often met with agreement on. There is one person I know however, who first told me he belonged to different faiths. A man in a Buddhist monastery who was there for an interfaith community organization meeting, who told me he was Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, as well as others. I'm the same way as him, except I'm only mainly Christian, Buddhist and Rastafarian.

Can a Christian be Buddhist? I've been told adamently, almost vehemently, no, and just thought I'd see what others think. I'm posting this thread because I realized I was talking about it on other threads where it was off-topic...

*sigh* It's a question of labels...

[Ellie_]

That depends on the exact beliefs of the Christian, I guess. Many Christians in the modern western world accept only the morals of their religion, such as charity, but are open to other spiritual concepts. Being a Buddhist, you would have to arrange the Christian idea of the immortal soul with the Buddhist concept of disappearing in the nirvana as your main intention in life. I guess that is the main difference.

[Stanislaw]

It depends on if you accept portions of each belief, for example I think the reincarnation of buddhism vs the single life of christians would be a conflict, and it would also depend on which form of buddhism you are speaking about.

I am christian, but there are many buddhist ideals and beliefs that make sense to me, and that I could even accept, but my primary belief is christian, I suppose I accept many ideas, but do not define my self as buddhist since I do not accept all of the ideals.

I hope this not too personal of a question, but which form of buddhism do you support?

[NikolaiI]

Right, the conflicting views and beliefs that determine if someone is a Christian or Buddhsit, and it could be argued they are mutually or at least one way exclusive. I wish I knew what that one guy would say about it.

Well, I'm not a Buddhist scholar, I don't know the different kinds in detail, but if it is an accepted form, then I am a zen Buddhist? I think Tibetan, too. But really I don't think there should be divisions, really, between religions or in a religion.

[Countess]

I consider myself a Christian Buddhist, with Christianity taking precedent. Buddha never professed himself a God, so there is no antimony there. The practical philosophy of Buddhism walks hand-in-hand with the spiritual daily living of Christianity, so again, no conflict. The only conflict between the two concerns pre-life and after-life. In those I am decidedly Christian.
Thing is, Buddhism allows for variation: you accept what resonates with you and abandon what doesn't. So, if reincarnation does not resound with me, as a "Buddist" I am free to denounce it and still be a Buddhist.
The fact is, Christianity is offensive by it's very nature (which is why we have "apologetics") because it pre-supposes an absolute truth with no allowance for deviation. Denying the diefication of Christ means one is patently not Christian.
Hope I didn't offend anybody by saying that but its a fact. - C

PS: I have read the Dali Llama's writings and found much value in them - except the reincarnation stuff.

[hyperborean]

The two cannot be mixed. Nietzsche says it best here:

"Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity--it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, "god," was already disposed of before it appeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism) --It does not speak of a "struggle with sin," but, yielding to reality, of the "struggle with suffering." Sharply differentiating itself from Christianity, it puts the self-deception that lies in moral concepts be hind it; it is, in my phrase,beyond good and evil." -Nietzsche (Anti-Christ)

[billyjack]

jack keroack subsribed to both christianity and buddhism. he labeled himself a "mystic christian."

all religious traditions, including islam, judiasm, and christianity, have mystical offshoots that tend to resemble buddhism but still consider themselves to be members of their original creed.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Christianity identifies God through dualism whereas Buddhism identifies its deity as either nondual or does not exist. These are already mutually exclusive. Further questions would be whether reincarnation is true, whether knowledge of Jesus is necessary for an afterlife, and whether the Bible was inspired by God. I would say they are very mutually exclusive.

I imagine that many people try to take bits and pieces of each and form something they are content with, but I would hardly consider that subscribing to both.

[mtpspur]

I submit that the main problem of borrowing from one belief system and another is that by so doing you tend to leave out the 'down' side of the specified religion and retain that which pleases the flesh and lulls the spirit into a state of contentment much like the lotus eaters from the Odyessey.

The particular difference I believe that the Bible or if you will Christianity continually declares that humanity has a 'problem' (known as sin) which has made them unfit for the afterlife and the situation needs to be resolved in THIS life. The solution has been provided by the Lord Christ for ANY who believe. But God being a jealous God will NOT share this 'life' with another--as in other beliefs/saviors etc. in competiton with the worship of Himself. I much prefer the word relationship with God and not religious belief. My personal doctrines lean towards liberal Calvinism. Hope this helps.

Or simpler put you can't serve two masters--neither gets your best.

[Bookworm4Him]

no. A true Christian is literally a "little Christ", or a follower of Christ. Christ says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NONE can come to the Father, except through Me." He also says that you can only have one master. That leaves no room for other gods, or any religion. If you are a Christian, then you are OnLy a Christian. period

[Taliesin]

But, Bookworm4Him, if we are not mistaken, buddhism is a religion which doesn't deal with the problems of god(s), (actually, some branches are atheistic or even antitheistic, if we are correctly informed), but with problems of ethics. At that, it has also been discussed whether it is a religion or rather a philosophy.
And Christianity and Buddhism have a lot, really a vast number of branches that have different rules and beliefs and whatnot and so we would not think it impossible for them to mingle.
However, as it has been pointed out, Christianity and Buddhism, although there is no direct conflict as such (besides the afterlife), are religions of so different natures ("struggle with sin" versus "struggle with suffering") that it would be difficult to practice both.
However, in our personal opinion, who cares? With religions and personal philisophies, do as you wish, take those parts of the religions that you feel are right and disband those that feel wrong. What you end up with might not be easily classified, but at least it is your own and you don't have to feel like: "I am supposed to do that, because religion X says so, and it is a really nice religion that offers things no other religion does(feels like an washing-powder advert, doesn't it?), and although I don't feel that is right, I should do it, because X says it is right"

[Countess]

I think people must have a false notion of exactly what Buddhism is. Let's look at the 4 noble truths and the 8-fold path:

4 NOBLE TRUTHS

1.) "There is suffering, dukkha. Dukkha should be understood. Dukkha has been understood."

In the garden, man fell from grace. Sin and death (suffering) entered the world. Before Adam sinned, suffering did not exist.

2.) Suffering: It is craving which renews being and is accompanied by relish and lust, relishing this and that: in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for non-being. But whereon does this craving arise and flourish? Wherever there is what seems lovable and gratifying, thereon it arises and flourishes.

Lust of the flesh/ corruption of the soul. We worship ourselves. "Man is too easily satisfied" - Pascal, Christian scientist.

3.) What is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering? It is the remainderless fading and cessation of that same craving; the rejecting, relinquishing, leaving and renouncing of it. But whereon is this craving abandoned and made to cease? Wherever there is what seems lovable and gratifying, thereon it is abandoned and made to cease.

St. Augustine said by renouncing the self, we bring ourselves/our will in line with Gods. When we do this, suffering ceases because our will and God's will are in perfect harmony. (Yes, this is very Ideal and nobody will achieve it on earth, but it's the goal.)

The only difference here is Buddhism says "stop wanting" while Christianity says "stop wanting but desire God's will". Christianity takes Buddhism a step farther by positing an affirmative action rather than renouncing a negative one.

4.) What is the Noble Truth of the Way Leading to the Cessation of Suffering? It is the Noble Eightfold Path, that is to say: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration

8 FOLD PATH:

WISDOM

1. Right View (God's perspective)
2. Right Intention. It means to see things through, to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas/that all human beings suffer (Right understanding, etc leads to right action). I don't think I really need to explain this in Christian terms.

ETHICAL CONDUCT

3. Right Speech (no lying, gossiping, cursing, slandering etc - speak only what is holy and edifying. Speak truth in Love)
4. Right Action (Ten Commandments; The Greatest Commandment)
5. Right Livelihood (see Psalms 31 about the Godly wife; also passages about it being good to work with one's hands and to work)

MENTAL EFFORT

6. Right Effort (to pour energy into abstaining from unwholesomeness while also obtaining wholesomeness)
7. Right Mindfulness (contemplation in order to see things as they really are, not as we initially perceive them to be or want them to be: ie: get rid of denial.)
8. Right Concentration (complete focus on wholesomeness, or as Christians would say, "spirtual-mindedness" without "fleshly appetite").

Buddhism is general while Christianity is specific. Christianity's specific edicts (if they were arranged systematically) would easily fall under Buddhism's general principles. The two walk well together.

I don't worship Buddha (or really pay any attention to him) but I do love his ideas and his systematic approach to spirituality. It's easier for me to think "right action today" and implement it than to recall the 50 or more specific Christian commandments and try to remember each one, putting it into practice.

Anyone who says they're mutually exclusive - I suspect they don't understand Buddhism or Christianity or both.

[Countess]

no. A true Christian is literally a "little Christ", or a follower of Christ. Christ says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NONE can come to the Father, except through Me."

That's true. Salvation occurs only through Jesus, but Buddha isn't interested in saving your soul - mainly because he doesn't think you have one. ;)


He also says that you can only have one master. That leaves no room for other gods, or any religion.

I don't worship Buddha - and he's never asked me to, either. He never considered himself a god, and neither do I. If anyone makes him a god, it's their fault, not buddhas.

Actually, Buddhism is an atheistic religion - that's what people don't understand - but to be honest, the Buddhists I know have a little Christianity in their mix and pray to God. They're only a step away from Christ in alot of ways - it's just trying to figure out how to reintroduce Christ as a loving savior when there are self-righteous idiots screaming Hellfire and Damnation on every TV station in America.

[NikolaiI]

Metaphysical speculation kind of lends itself to Buddhism, I think.

[hyperborean]

I found a good article on the topic by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon.

PDF: http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W1101.pdf

HTML:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:WgKgZr5uaAEJ:www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W1101.pdf+buddhism+vs+christianity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

[Countess]

I could counter with articles to the contrary, but it's a moot point. People who look for similiarities will find them. People who look for differences will find them. I look for ways to relate to others, rather than ways to ostrasize them.

[hyperborean]

True, but by definition these two religions are opposites. In Buddhism the goal is to glorify man, and in Christianity the goal is glorify god.

[Countess]

Yes. Christians most glorify God when they become like Christ, which represents the perfection of man. We reflect the image and glory of God to the universe. Both Buddhists and Christians strive for perfection, but for different reasons.

[NikolaiI]

The two cannot be mixed. Nietzsche says it best here:

"Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity--it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. The concept, "god," was already disposed of before it appeared. Buddhism is the only genuinely positive religion to be encountered in history, and this applies even to its epistemology (which is a strict phenomenalism) --It does not speak of a "struggle with sin," but, yielding to reality, of the "struggle with suffering." Sharply differentiating itself from Christianity, it puts the self-deception that lies in moral concepts be hind it; it is, in my phrase,beyond good and evil." -Nietzsche (Anti-Christ)

I love Nietzsche, but I have to disagree with a couple of points in this quote. While it doesn't use the word sin, the 'struggle with suffering' is conquered when you conquer yourself, and it is not a struggle for you to do the right thing. When your mind is transformed, etc. We suffer because we are attached, to habits of discursive thinking, and patterns of unwholesome behavior, etc., most of all to our ideas about these things. It's always been my idea that our main problem is overestimating the problem, and underestimating ourselves. I guess negative attitude. About smoking, and everything else.

I just don't disagree with him that Christianity is so negative. Nietzsche says it is based on the contemptible emotion of pity, but there is more of that in Christianity than Buddhism? If he means pity on someone because they are going to hell, and not heaven, as I realize now, then yeah that's a problem. But supposedly that is a curse of pretentious people, not anything else.

Maybe I don't know what moral concepts are, but Buddha talked a lot about wisdom, compassion, generosity, kindness, and purity of mind. At least kindness seems to be moral. I do agree it is beyond good and evil, because it views these things from a height.

I disagree with a lot of things that article says, though. It was almost amusing to see it say that the two religions are as irreconcilable as East and West, since what is the difference between East and West?

"In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then beleive them to be true. "

And I disagree with the article's conclusion that to practice both religions is to do a disservice to them both. This doesn't seem to be based on logic, as a lot of the rest of it. It seems more just opinion.

About Nietzsche, there are other things he's said that would support my argument. For instance, there is no thing. If there is no such thing as a thing, would it then be accurate to label it as a Christian or Atheist or Hindu or Buddhist? I just love that quote by Nietzsche because it resembles Eastern thought. And I know saying that won't convince anyone, for instance, who says that the two are incompatible.

There are some wonderful Buddha quotes on this website...http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/buddha.html check it out.

Anyway, thank you everyone for your opnion on this. I look forward to your posts.

Alex.

[linz]

Psalm 23 "The Lord is my sheppard, I shall not want." The Buddha considered desire a prime path to suffering. Christ spoke of the meek and poor in spirit as blessed. Notice Christ didn't say modesty, he said meekness; This is a rare thing, as opinion is so front and center nowadays. Maybe heaven or nirvana's attributes are neither positive or negative with nothing to lose or gain?

[weepingforloman]

This is something that's very interesting to me, and I'd love to have some intelligent conversations about it on here, surely with people of various faiths.

It's something I'm not sure I've often met with agreement on. There is one person I know however, who first told me he belonged to different faiths. A man in a Buddhist monastery who was there for an interfaith community organization meeting, who told me he was Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, as well as others. I'm the same way as him, except I'm only mainly Christian, Buddhist and Rastafarian.

Can a Christian be Buddhist? I've been told adamently, almost vehemently, no, and just thought I'd see what others think. I'm posting this thread because I realized I was talking about it on other threads where it was off-topic...

*sigh* It's a question of labels...

I'd love to use the "enlightened modern" answer and say yes, but Scripture weighs against it. "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through me," said Christ. If you claim to believe in Christ, I'd say that pretty clearly prevents you from attempting any other means to salvation (the Eightfold Path). Additionally, I would say that Christianity requires belief in the imperfection of mankind, and Buddhism is dependent on the individual's attainment of perfection... No go, bud... But some people would definitely say yes.

[NikolaiI]

Nobody says yes. That alone almost makes it perfect. I think Jesus would say yes. Haha, blasphemy for you, eh?

However, it's not something to fight for.

[tulysg1982]

why not, if anybody whether h\she is influenced by the Buddha's 4 noble truths as well as the circle of rebirth also if one thinks that all our suffering is for birth and if one is attracted by Buddha's state of extreme tranquility and obtain the humanistic approach of buddhism then i m sure everybody has a chance to get attached by buddhism remaining in his or her own baptized religion .

[weepingforloman]

Nobody says yes. That alone almost makes it perfect. I think Jesus would say yes. Haha, blasphemy for you, eh?

However, it's not something to fight for.

I personally think Christ's words (which I quoted) speak for themselves. However, I don't think it's quite blasphemy... People overuse that word. And of course it's nothing to fight for. Hardly anything is.

[JGL57]

Anything is possible, because words can be defined as each individual wishes - if the rest of the world disagrees, so what? E.g., defined in a certain way, it is possible for a person to be a Nazi Quaker, a virgin AND a prostitute, or for a rock to be conscious, etc.

[weepingforloman]

Anything is possible, because words can be defined as each individual wishes - if the rest of the world disagrees, so what? E.g., defined in a certain way, it is possible for a person to be a Nazi Quaker, a virgin AND a prostitute, or for a rock to be conscious, etc.

That's true, but, generally speaking, we use words because we agree on their meaning, which is a representation of reality. If we all accept the meaning of the words, there is such a thing as contradiction. If we accept the meanings the words "Buddhist" and "Christian" are intended to convey, we must also accept the contradiction inherent in being both.

[JGL57]

That's true, but, generally speaking, we use words because we agree on their meaning, which is a representation of reality. If we all accept the meaning of the words, there is such a thing as contradiction. If we accept the meanings the words "Buddhist" and "Christian" are intended to convey, we must also accept the contradiction inherent in being both.

Really? I would be happy if everyone could agree on the definitions of "god" and "religion".

I will not be holding my breath until that happens.

[weepingforloman]

God is too complex to be defined; you cannot define a person, so how could you possibly define the source of all personhood? Religion does have an agreed upon meaning... Do you mean all people should agree on which religion to follow? I agree with that as well, and I think it should be Christianity.

[NikolaiI]

The famous reply of Franklin Bond to Arslan, a terrorist who had taken over the world, in answer to what was wrong with the world, is "I think it's too little Christianity." - From a novel my grandmother wrote.

Pascal said God was a hidden, concealed God. He said not knowing God was not proof of his inexistence because that was one of the tenants of Christianity, that God was unknowable.

My definition of God is the link between us all. But that's not going deep enough. God is more simple, and more basic than that. He's the link between all atoms. He's infinite, as Pascal says, a point that is in all other points simultaneously, traveling at infinite velocity around the universe. But I think that belies the static nature of God - God is energy and life.

But in that sense we can know God. God is the deepest sense of life. Anyway.

[weepingforloman]

I believe that God is not static... This kind of definition makes God seem subhuman, not superhuman, as He is. If things as foolish and weak as humans are active, how can God not be? But, yes, God does hold together the universe, but that is not His only action.

Your grandmother's writing reminds me of something G.K. Chesterton (a theologian, long dead) wrote: a British magazine wrote to various writers with the question "What is wrong with the world?" Chesterton replied, "Dear Sirs, I am." And that was all.

[weepingforloman]

Psalm 23 "The Lord is my sheppard, I shall not want." The Buddha considered desire a prime path to suffering. Christ spoke of the meek and poor in spirit as blessed. Notice Christ didn't say modesty, he said meekness; This is a rare thing, as opinion is so front and center nowadays. Maybe heaven or nirvana's attributes are neither positive or negative with nothing to lose or gain?

"I shall not want"-- this means that God will provide for all the person's needs, not that the person will not ever want anything-- he'd die if that were the case! We have wants because they can be satisfied. However, it is true that wants are often excessive or misdirected.

[JGL57]

...Pascal said God was a hidden, concealed God. He said not knowing God was not proof of his inexistence because that was one of the tenants of Christianity, that God was unknowable.

My definition of God is the link between us all. But that's not going deep enough. God is more simple, and more basic than that. He's the link between all atoms. He's infinite, as Pascal says, a point that is in all other points simultaneously, traveling at infinite velocity around the universe. But I think that belies the static nature of God - God is energy and life.

But in that sense we can know God. God is the deepest sense of life. Anyway.


I find nothing to argue against here, and I am an atheist. Hope that doesn't bother you. :lol:


I believe that God is not static... This kind of definition makes God seem subhuman, not superhuman, as He is. If things as foolish and weak as humans are active, how can God not be? But, yes, God does hold together the universe, but that is not His only action...

What if you think outside the box and define "god" as neither subhuman or superhuman, not a person or an impersonal something, but the ground of being, the Non-Dual, The Absolute Unity, is transendent to all dualistic concepts, an "Energy" that is beyond all concepts of energy and non-energy?

What if god is you and you are god? The ocean less a drop of water is not the ocean. It would then be something else. But it can't be something else. It is the ocean.

[NikolaiI]

Ha, that nails it. Thank you, J. And no it doesn't bother me, because I consider myself atheist as well, since I don't believe in any one else's God. Therefore, to the definition of the world, I am atheist, by my definition.

Your talking about the ocean reminds me of something Ken Wilber said. Actually I believe it was someone else that Wilber quoted. "We search for enlightenment, but we do not have to search, because it is all around us and everyone is living in it. It is like trying to figure out how to be wet while standing in the ocean, and splashing about, but not seeing it." Or something like that.

Also, I think the Buddhists have it really right when they say we are not seperate from the world, but a part of the world. Working for the whole.


I believe that God is not static... This kind of definition makes God seem subhuman, not superhuman, as He is. If things as foolish and weak as humans are active, how can God not be? But, yes, God does hold together the universe, but that is not His only action.

Your grandmother's writing reminds me of something G.K. Chesterton (a theologian, long dead) wrote: a British magazine wrote to various writers with the question "What is wrong with the world?" Chesterton replied, "Dear Sirs, I am." And that was all.

Maybe I have it wrong. But I didn't mean that God was subhuman. God is in us all, and therefore greater than us all. God is in the entire universe, in every atom, etc., decidedly awesome.

Well, the book, Arslan, is...shocking, to say the least. I was just reminded of that quote.

[weepingforloman]

I find nothing to argue against here, and I am an atheist. Hope that doesn't bother you. :lol:



What if you think outside the box and define "god" as neither subhuman or superhuman, not a person or an impersonal something, but the ground of being, the Non-Dual, The Absolute Unity, is transendent to all dualistic concepts, an "Energy" that is beyond all concepts of energy and non-energy?

What if god is you and you are god? The ocean less a drop of water is not the ocean. It would then be something else. But it can't be something else. It is the ocean.

What you describe is still subhuman, I don't think that an "Energy" could have conciousness, and the unconcious is subhuman. The second thing you describe is essentially Pantheism. If I am God, then God has a whole lot of problems.

[JGL57]

What you describe is still subhuman, I don't think that an "Energy" could have conciousness, and the unconcious is subhuman...

You really like humans, don't you? You seem sure that humans are the only reason the universe is even here. And your god seems to be a super human, a superman, but in a white robe and with a long white beard, rather than in blue and red tights and a cape. :lol:

Apparently the person god was created in our own image because (many) humans love themselves so much that they can't imagine ultimate reality being anything other than a great big powerful human (who is usually envisioned as white and male).

Excuse me, but that's almost funny.


...The second thing you describe is essentially Pantheism. If I am God, then God has a whole lot of problems ...

No, god (ultimate reality) is cool - it is indeed you that has all the problems.

And pantheism is a dirty word? Since when?

[NikolaiI]

Wikipedia has a great article on pantheism. I think the Bhagavad Gita is amazingly rewarding to study. It's so beautiful.

[JGL57]

Ha, that nails it. Thank you, J. And no it doesn't bother me, because I consider myself atheist as well, since I don't believe in any one else's God. Therefore, to the definition of the world, I am atheist, by my definition. .

I know what you mean. I’m serious thinking that, in the future if someone asked me if I believe in god or if I am an atheist I am just going to reply “I don’t believe anything other people tell me about god. And I have never personally met god. So, you tell me.” :lol:


…Your talking about the ocean reminds me of something Ken Wilber said. Actually I believe it was someone else that Wilber quoted. "We search for enlightenment, but we do not have to search, because it is all around us and everyone is living in it. It is like trying to figure out how to be wet while standing in the ocean, and splashing about, but not seeing it." Or something like that…

There are lots of analogies used to explain the Non-Dual concept. One I like is the idea of a person refusing to breath, and then complaining because he’s not getting enough air.


…Also, I think the Buddhists have it really right when they say we are not separate from the world, but a part of the world. Working for the whole…

In eastern wisdom traditions, the common esoteric philosophy is recognition of an Ultimate Unity rather than any kind of ultimate duality, i.e., pure Identify, not Relationship, which is only within the world of ten thousand things, i.e., the pairs of opposites that compose it. And yet, both are the same. That is the real Mysterium Tremendum. :)

[NikolaiI]

In eastern wisdom traditions, the common esoteric philosophy is recognition of an Ultimate Unity rather than any kind of ultimate duality, i.e., pure Identify, not Relationship, which is only within the world of ten thousand things, i.e., the pairs of opposites that compose it. And yet, both are the same. That is the real Mysterium Tremendum. :)

Yeah. Eastern wisdom is great. Hinduism and Buddhism, etc. Ken Wilber has a good book on the subject called "No Boundary", and another one called "The Atman Project". It's a romantic subject, in my opinion.

Also, a must read is Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, if you haven't heard of it.

[NikolaiI]

I believe that God is not static... This kind of definition makes God seem subhuman, not superhuman, as He is. If things as foolish and weak as humans are active, how can God not be?

I guess I didn't express my view entirely clearly. However, I'm almost positive I didn't depict God as subhuman. If he is in the entire universe, and beyond, or whatever, if he is in every atom, and he is energy, etc., you would call that subhuman? Definitely not. If god were smaller than a human, and not vice-versa, then he would be inside one person and wouldn't be available to others. On the contrary, I suggest the opposite. We are smaller than god.

Now, just because God is not conscious (if so) that does not mean he is less than conscious. There is such a thing as transcending consciousness. And not conscious doesn't mean subhuman, either. For example, a storm or a glacier or another kind of force of nature may not be conscious, but it is more powerful than humans. I like Pascal's quote about how human can be crushed by a drop of vapor.

I said God was static. Perhaps that wasn't quite what I meant. Nature isn't static, it is ever changing - flowing forces, as nietzsche says, "a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms"

- However, the GOD behind it all, beneath it all, is static energy. It is life that you can taste. But being infinite, a single point traveling infinite velocity as Pascal says, of course it is dynamic, too...

I hope that helps explain my view. Anyhow, I do not consider God (insert Life) to be subhuman.

[weepingforloman]

You really like humans, don't you? You seem sure that humans are the only reason the universe is even here. And your god seems to be a super human, a superman, but in a white robe and with a long white beard, rather than in blue and red tights and a cape. :lol:

Apparently the person god was created in our own image because (many) humans love themselves so much that they can't imagine ultimate reality being anything other than a great big powerful human (who is usually envisioned as white and male).

Excuse me, but that's almost funny.



No, god (ultimate reality) is cool - it is indeed you that has all the problems.

And pantheism is a dirty word? Since when?

Pantheism is not a "dirty word." I just think it's bull. No, I don't really like humans that much-- but I love God a lot, and I find it horrible that people would sink Him to a lower level even than we, who have "mouths like open graves," and "feet swift to shed blood." I don't believe God is a human-- He does not have a body. I think that if one were to picture God as a person it would be best to think of a Middle Eastern (Jesus was a Palestinian). I know I have problems-- that's exactly why I said if I was God God would have problems (you see, if I was God, and I have problems, God would have problems). Don't presume that all Christians, or all theists period, share your childlike, twisted picture of a personal God (since you apparently don't believe in one). Oh, and I don't believe humans are the reason the universe is here-- the universe is God's and God's alone, it is for His purposes that He created it... but humans are the closest known life to God (natural life that is, not supernatural).

[weepingforloman]

I guess I didn't express my view entirely clearly. However, I'm almost positive I didn't depict God as subhuman. If he is in the entire universe, and beyond, or whatever, if he is in every atom, and he is energy, etc., you would call that subhuman? Definitely not. If god were smaller than a human, and not vice-versa, then he would be inside one person and wouldn't be available to others. On the contrary, I suggest the opposite. We are smaller than god.

Now, just because God is not conscious (if so) that does not mean he is less than conscious. There is such a thing as transcending consciousness. And not conscious doesn't mean subhuman, either. For example, a storm or a glacier or another kind of force of nature may not be conscious, but it is more powerful than humans. I like Pascal's quote about how human can be crushed by a drop of vapor.

I said God was static. Perhaps that wasn't quite what I meant. Nature isn't static, it is ever changing - flowing forces, as nietzsche says, "a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms"

- However, the GOD behind it all, beneath it all, is static energy. It is life that you can taste. But being infinite, a single point traveling infinite velocity as Pascal says, of course it is dynamic, too...

I hope that helps explain my view. Anyhow, I do not consider God (insert Life) to be subhuman.
I think storms, nature, etc. are subhuman-- just because they are powerful does not make them superhuman, some of the worst people in history have been tremendously powerful people. I would consider anything lacking a purposeful, intelligent will to be subhuman. I think Nietzsche was full of crap (and yes, I have read him-- I think "Also Sprach Zarathustra" was the most overrated bit of anti-God schlock in modern history). I believe, as you seem to, that God sustains creation, but while you appear to stop at that, I would say that that is the least of His functions. Beyond the mere power of God is a purpose, a will, and a Mind like no other, balanced also with the sheer goodness of God (and that is another reason I reject the force/energy model-- I believe God is good, and forces never have goodness in and of themselves).

[JGL57]

Pantheism is not a "dirty word." I just think it's bull....

Insulting the beliefs of billions of fellow humans – just dismissing their beliefs as “bull”? I would never do that. How dare you!


…He does not have a body. I think that if one were to picture God as a person it would be best to think of a Middle Eastern (Jesus was a Palestinian)...

OK. If it is not that big a deal, then it would apparently be OK to picture god as a paraplegic Black lesbian? If so, that’s what I will do from now on – I mean, if it’s ok.


…I know I have problems-- that's exactly why I said if I was God God would have problems (you see, if I was God, and I have problems, God would have problems)...

No, you completely misunderstand the whole thrust of pantheism. I suggest you read up on it and then get back to us. Here’s a couple of links to understanding:

http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism


…Don't presume that all Christians, or all theists period, share your childlike, twisted picture of a personal God (since you apparently don't believe in one)...

I have a childlike and twisted picture of a personal god? Why, thank you. And I owe it all to the southern baptists, who were essentially my only religious influence for the first twenty years of my life.


…Oh, and I don't believe humans are the reason the universe is here-- the universe is God's and God's alone, it is for His purposes that He created it... but humans are the closest known life to God (natural life that is, not supernatural)...

As the statement by you just reaffirmed EXACTLY my original point, I need make no further comment. Thank you – again.

[weepingforloman]

Insulting the beliefs of billions of fellow humans – just dismissing their beliefs as “bull”? I would never do that. How dare you!



OK. If it is not that big a deal, then it would apparently be OK to picture god as a paraplegic Black lesbian? If so, that’s what I will do from now on – I mean, if it’s ok.



No, you completely misunderstand the whole thrust of pantheism. I suggest you read up on it and then get back to us. Here’s a couple of links to understanding:

http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism



I have a childlike and twisted picture of a personal god? Why, thank you. And I owe it all to the southern baptists, who were essentially my only religious influence for the first twenty years of my life.



As the statement by you just reaffirmed EXACTLY my original point, I need make no further comment. Thank you – again.

My basic point was that you should not picture God as a human at all (He is not physical). What does paralysis have to do with anything?

Pantheism involves an impersonal pseudo-God... that's all I need to know.

Don't confuse the visible church with the invisible Church. And don't confuse either with Christ.

Do you really think any other created being is closer to God than man? Name one for me, please.

Grace and Peace.

[JGL57]

My basic point was that you should not picture God as a human at all (He is not physical). What does paralysis have to do with anything? . “He” is not physical? Is he mental?


…Pantheism involves an impersonal pseudo-God... that's all I need to know. .

Your definition of pantheism is utterly incorrect. What else do you not know that may be relevant to the discussion?


…Don't confuse the visible church with the invisible Church. And don't confuse either with Christ. .

I am not confused. I can tell the visible from invisible. The invisible is MUCH, MUCH – fainter.


…Do you really think any other created being is closer to God than man? Name one for me, please…

Again, I recommend you read up on pantheism. I have read the bible. I know what theism is. If you continue in your total ignorance of pantheism, this discussion becomes an abortion – and no one wants that.

[weepingforloman]

I really don't see what my statement that man is close to God has to do with what you suppose to be my lack of information about pantheism... There are other forms, you know, many religious beliefs could be classified as pantheist... I say pseudo-God because the pantheist idea of God is so much different from the personal God I love... God is spiritual... The Invisible Church is a theological concept, it means all those who truly (not merely claim to) believe in Christ... Pantheism: the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature. (That's straight from the dictionary).

[JGL57]

I really don't see what my statement that man is close to God has to do with what you suppose to be my lack of information about pantheism... There are other forms, you know, many religious beliefs could be classified as pantheist... I say pseudo-God because the pantheist idea of God is so much different from the personal God I love... God is spiritual...

Nevertheless, billions of people accept pantheism as their ontology. Billions of others, e.g., you, disagree. Do you think YOU beliefs are somehow valid in some provable and public way, as opposed to the pantheists? They are somehow missing the point, and only need to hear a sermon from you to understand the situation correctly? I go more for live and let live. What is the problem with that - since there is not going to be much conversion by either side, now or ever - (it seems to me).


...Pantheism: the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature. (That's straight from the dictionary).

And who was the person doing the defining - a christian brother of yours, perhaps? E.g., the dictionary definition of "atheist" has always been screwy, simply because I doubt any atheist was ever consulted - it would always be a christian defining the term.

Pantheism is simply all is god. This makes logical sense if you believe in god's omnipresence. Think about that. Otherwise, whence god's omnipresence?

As to personality, pantheism sees ultimate reality as a Self or a concept beyond the duality of personal and impersonal. Your statement of pantheism as being a "denial" of god's personality sounds suspect to me. It sounds rather like the dictionary definition of "atheist" as one who "denied" there is a god.

Sounds like someone is starting with a premise of a personal god, then working from there. I see that more as just prejudice rather than some disinterested methodology.

How about I define theism as "The denial that the universe spontaneously exists and evolves according to innate and immutable attributes (descriptive laws). Does that work for you?

[NikolaiI]

I think storms, nature, etc. are subhuman-- just because they are powerful does not make them superhuman, some of the worst people in history have been tremendously powerful people. I would consider anything lacking a purposeful, intelligent will to be subhuman. I think Nietzsche was full of crap (and yes, I have read him-- I think "Also Sprach Zarathustra" was the most overrated bit of anti-God schlock in modern history). I believe, as you seem to, that God sustains creation, but while you appear to stop at that, I would say that that is the least of His functions. Beyond the mere power of God is a purpose, a will, and a Mind like no other, balanced also with the sheer goodness of God (and that is another reason I reject the force/energy model-- I believe God is good, and forces never have goodness in and of themselves).

Let's reconsider that belief, that nature and storms are subhuman. Nature extends - nature includes the universe. I mean planets, stars, galaxies, all those are included in nature. Do you really mean nature is subhuman? Humans are a part of nature, and if they are greater than nature, you're saying they're greater than themselves, which doesn't make sense.

Again, non-conscious doesn't mean sub-conscious. Eastern wisdom tells us that the path of growth, of spiritual enlightenment takes us on a path, where we begin and end non-conscious. As an infant, we are not conscious, and there's no difference between the infant and the world around it. To make it short, then there's different levels of the ego, until we eventually transcend it all. (No Boundary, and The Atman Project, by Ken Wilber) At least that is the goal. On one end is an infant, on the other end is the enlightened individual, that perceives the truth, etc.

This fact is what leads people like me to try for a reconciliation of beliefs, and encourages people to expand their minds and learn and grow and experiment and all those things. It's because I've seen glimpes of very rich and beautiful knowledge in lots of different places, it's what makes me open to new things as well.

As you probably know, I was raised Christian, Presbyterian, which was my mother's faith. My father has always been atheist and never lied to me about that. I used to have full faith and at some point I realized I was faking my belief, and became atheist. I won't recount all the twists for you, but like I've said, I've seen many beautiful glimpses along the way. At some point I studied Buddhism, then later the Bhagavad-Gita, and eventually decided I could reconcile the (yes, personal) God of YHWA with other faiths. Eventually I realized that even atheism was compatible with other isms, and I'll argue that with you if you like, it is the topic of this thread.

As to what you were saying, regardless of whether it is good or not, I would like to hear what you meant. I mean, the earth - subhuman? I can't think of any value system that would support this except one that says humans are greater than things that aren't human. Anyway, forget about the conscious thing. As someone once said, "Without comparing, beauty is everywhere."

But surely that gets too zen for you. As with most people. I'm not trying to be personal, just slightly provocative.

As for Nietzsche, I'll ask you how much of him you read. I've only read the first two books and part of the third of Thus Spake Zarathustra, and I am a person that loves him. How much of him have you read - who holds him in such low esteem? And if that's all you've seen of his, then I really suggest you don't read anything else, you really won't like it.

Okay, cheers, have a good day, Namaste.

Also, everything has a purpose. Especially time - to illustrate how life goes. Each day and each minute are building to something, and all of our past is building up to the present, always. That is what meditation is good for. And if we have fallacious beliefs, I truly believe humans have the capability to be openminded and learn and arrive at the truth.

[weepingforloman]

Nevertheless, billions of people accept pantheism as their ontology. Billions of others, e.g., you, disagree. Do you think YOU beliefs are somehow valid in some provable and public way, as opposed to the pantheists? They are somehow missing the point, and only need to hear a sermon from you to understand the situation correctly? I go more for live and let live. What is the problem with that - since there is not going to be much conversion by either side, now or ever - (it seems to me).
That's too many people... Yes, I think I'm right. If you don't think you're right, why think? I don't go for live and let live, and I think only God's grace brings one to faith in Christ.




And who was the person doing the defining - a christian brother of yours, perhaps? E.g., the dictionary definition of "atheist" has always been screwy, simply because I doubt any atheist was ever consulted - it would always be a christian defining the term.

Pantheism is simply all is god. This makes logical sense if you believe in god's omnipresence. Think about that. Otherwise, whence god's omnipresence?

As to personality, pantheism sees ultimate reality as a Self or a concept beyond the duality of personal and impersonal. Your statement of pantheism as being a "denial" of god's personality sounds suspect to me. It sounds rather like the dictionary definition of "atheist" as one who "denied" there is a god.

Sounds like someone is starting with a premise of a personal god, then working from there. I see that more as just prejudice rather than some disinterested methodology.

How about I define theism as "The denial that the universe spontaneously exists and evolves according to innate and immutable attributes (descriptive laws). Does that work for you?

I believe with all my being in a personal God. So, perhaps that is a prejudice, but why does that matter? You start with the prejudice that there is NO personal God. If all is God then God is not good, and a God that is not good should not be worshiped. God is omnipresent but not part of nature-- He is the painter, who can see and touch all of His painting, and yet is not part of the canvas.

[hyperborean]

weepingforloman, maybe in college you'll be ready to read zarathustra because you definitely didn't understand it the first time around.

[JGL57]

That's too many people... Yes, I think I'm right. If you don't think you're right, why think? I don't go for live and let live, and I think only God's grace brings one to faith in Christ...

Uh huh. And what is the consequence, do you "think" of not having faith in god or god's grace - exactly? I ask you this because I don't want to think something bad about you on assumption before giving you a chance to indict yourself.


...I believe with all my being in a personal God. So, perhaps that is a prejudice, but why does that matter? You start with the prejudice that there is NO personal God. If all is God then God is not good, and a God that is not good should not be worshiped. God is omnipresent but not part of nature-- He is the painter, who can see and touch all of His painting, and yet is not part of the canvas.

You couldn't be happier with your personal god. You think pantheists and atheists are missing the boat.

OK. Why should we care what you think? Why should we take your words seriously. Who, exactly, are you that we would care what you think?

[ennison]

' Why should we care what you think? Why should we take your words seriously. Who, exactly, are you that we would care what you think?'
Rhetoric. Handy stuff.

[JGL57]

' Why should we care what you think? Why should we take your words seriously. Who, exactly, are you that we would care what you think?'
Rhetoric. Handy stuff.

Hot air all the way around, sure - but I'm not the one who claims to KNOW or BELIEVE in invisible persons. Burden of proof, dude.

[weepingforloman]

Uh huh. And what is the consequence, do you "think" of not having faith in god or god's grace - exactly? I ask you this because I don't want to think something bad about you on assumption before giving you a chance to indict yourself.

Oh, no, I'll be happy to indict myself-- disapproval be damned, I believe in Hell. And I believe that we're all headed there, but for the grace of God.




You couldn't be happier with your personal god. You think pantheists and atheists are missing the boat.

OK. Why should we care what you think? Why should we take your words seriously. Who, exactly, are you that we would care what you think?

Yes, I do think you're "missing the boat." Why should you care what I think? Who am I? No reason, and no one, really. I am nothing too significant-- but Christ is important beyond importance.

Grace and Peace.

[JGL57]

Oh, no, I'll be happy to indict myself-- disapproval be damned, I believe in Hell. And I believe that we're all headed there, but for the grace of God...

I thought YOU were the christian here. So, be honest. You believe you are going to heaven, and you believe all atheists are going to hell.

I have no equivalent belief. I beleive that you are merely mistaken and wasting the one life you have.

Hell is a morally putrid idea, BTW. -Just thought I might mention that to you. Food for thought.


...Yes, I do think you're "missing the boat." Why should you care what I think? Who am I? No reason, and no one, really. I am nothing too significant-- but Christ is important beyond importance...

Sure, blame it all on christ. Pretty convenient.

[NikolaiI]

No one replied to my message! to my so-beautiful post, as it always goes.

I just realized this site puts the threads in bold that you haven't read the most updated post on. That is nifty.

[Logos]

NikolaiI it was a lovely, thought-provoking post but that is as far as I will go, not having any interest in discussing religion :p

Yes, topic titles that have new posts to them since you last logged on are in bold, and when you view the forum index http://www.online-literature.com/forums/index.php? the http://www.online-literature.com/forums/images/main-theme/statusicon/forum_new.gif book icon denotes new topics and posts to that forum

[NikolaiI]

Aww, thank you! :)

Not my best, but I felt ignored. I do love this site, all the authors, etc. I am now finding other good source sites for online books.

[NikolaiI]

If all is God then God is not good, and a God that is not good should not be worshiped. God is omnipresent but not part of nature-- He is the painter, who can see and touch all of His painting, and yet is not part of the canvas.

I have a question for you. You say that forces in nature are not good. But God said it was good after he created creation. Doesn't that mean that creation is good, as a whole?

[weepingforloman]

I thought YOU were the christian here. So, be honest. You believe you are going to heaven, and you believe all atheists are going to hell.
Would have thought that was evident when I said "but for the grace of God." If you remember, I discussed Calvin's special grace, which is faith, and I have faith. Sorry to be so unenlightened. It must be a real burden being so wise and wonderful, huh J?


I have no equivalent belief. I beleive that you are merely mistaken and wasting the one life you have.

Hell is a morally putrid idea, BTW. -Just thought I might mention that to you. Food for thought.

No, what is morally putrid is sin-- which we all have. I've already gotten past Hell as a detriment to my belief. What is currently an intellectual struggle for me is the justice of God's election of believers. But, regardless of what feeble obstructions my own mind can throw up, I will continue to believe-- because it is God that maintains my faith, not myself.




Sure, blame it all on christ. Pretty convenient.

What, exactly, did I "blame" on Christ?

[Visionary3]

My husband and I visited the Buddhist Temple in our area. The monk and the director ,who was a Catholic, both said that they were Christians. Budda did not intend to be a God or to be worshiped. His purpose was to help people live a better life on this earth.

Even so the temple had a big gold statue of Budda on the altar. When monks come from all over the world to their festivals I would doubt that they are all Christians too.

[weepingforloman]

weepingforloman, maybe in college you'll be ready to read zarathustra because you definitely didn't understand it the first time around.
I didn't offer an opinion or analysis, other than to say he was "anti-God." You won't deny that, seeing as how he claimed God is dead?


Let's reconsider that belief, that nature and storms are subhuman. Nature extends - nature includes the universe. I mean planets, stars, galaxies, all those are included in nature. Do you really mean nature is subhuman? Humans are a part of nature, and if they are greater than nature, you're saying they're greater than themselves, which doesn't make sense.

Again, non-conscious doesn't mean sub-conscious. Eastern wisdom tells us that the path of growth, of spiritual enlightenment takes us on a path, where we begin and end non-conscious. As an infant, we are not conscious, and there's no difference between the infant and the world around it. To make it short, then there's different levels of the ego, until we eventually transcend it all. (No Boundary, and The Atman Project, by Ken Wilber) At least that is the goal. On one end is an infant, on the other end is the enlightened individual, that perceives the truth, etc.

This fact is what leads people like me to try for a reconciliation of beliefs, and encourages people to expand their minds and learn and grow and experiment and all those things. It's because I've seen glimpes of very rich and beautiful knowledge in lots of different places, it's what makes me open to new things as well.

As you probably know, I was raised Christian, Presbyterian, which was my mother's faith. My father has always been atheist and never lied to me about that. I used to have full faith and at some point I realized I was faking my belief, and became atheist. I won't recount all the twists for you, but like I've said, I've seen many beautiful glimpses along the way. At some point I studied Buddhism, then later the Bhagavad-Gita, and eventually decided I could reconcile the (yes, personal) God of YHWA with other faiths. Eventually I realized that even atheism was compatible with other isms, and I'll argue that with you if you like, it is the topic of this thread.

As to what you were saying, regardless of whether it is good or not, I would like to hear what you meant. I mean, the earth - subhuman? I can't think of any value system that would support this except one that says humans are greater than things that aren't human. Anyway, forget about the conscious thing. As someone once said, "Without comparing, beauty is everywhere."

But surely that gets too zen for you. As with most people. I'm not trying to be personal, just slightly provocative.

As for Nietzsche, I'll ask you how much of him you read. I've only read the first two books and part of the third of Thus Spake Zarathustra, and I am a person that loves him. How much of him have you read - who holds him in such low esteem? And if that's all you've seen of his, then I really suggest you don't read anything else, you really won't like it.

Okay, cheers, have a good day, Namaste.

Also, everything has a purpose. Especially time - to illustrate how life goes. Each day and each minute are building to something, and all of our past is building up to the present, always. That is what meditation is good for. And if we have fallacious beliefs, I truly believe humans have the capability to be openminded and learn and arrive at the truth.

You and I start, naturally enough, with differing views of humanity. I, being Christian, believe that humanity is partly spirit, and partly flesh, making mankind somewhat above and beyond nature. We are intended to be the priest and even the Christ of nature... Do you really think infants are entirely unconscious? I would disagree there... And, I would say, non-consciousness does equal subconsciousness. After all, what you have there is a positive thing and a lack of that positive thing.

[blazeofglory]

This is something that's very interesting to me, and I'd love to have some intelligent conversations about it on here, surely with people of various faiths.

It's something I'm not sure I've often met with agreement on. There is one person I know however, who first told me he belonged to different faiths. A man in a Buddhist monastery who was there for an interfaith community organization meeting, who told me he was Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, as well as others. I'm the same way as him, except I'm only mainly Christian, Buddhist and Rastafarian.

Can a Christian be Buddhist? I've been told adamently, almost vehemently, no, and just thought I'd see what others think. I'm posting this thread because I realized I was talking about it on other threads where it was off-topic...

*sigh* It's a question of labels...

One can identify oneself with many identities at the same time. To be a Buddhist is also an identity, and so is to be a Hindu, and so is a Muslim.

A single man can be a doctor, a writer, an activist, a community worker at the same time, why not a Hindu, a Chrishtian, a Muslim, a Buddhist at the same time.

To be a Hindu means to live like a Hindu, the same goes with when it comes to be a Christian, a Buddhist and the like.

But if you follow a particular religion with a closed mind, being biased to the rest of other religions problems multiply. If you are open to or have respect for others' religions, or for others' customs of living,then you can harmonize yourself with all of them or if not even within the same religion also you can not live in harmony. For example, even within even in Christianity also there are sects, and if you can not live integrally you can not be a true Christian.

[Demian]

Ther are some scholars who looked at the striking similarities between the sayings of Jesus and Buddha and concluded that Jesus may have borrowed heavily from a Buddhist/Hindu influence in the Middle East during his day. Marcus Borg put out a book in which their sayings are compared, with Jesus' words on one page and Buddha's on the facing page. There are many striking comparisons between the two. I would say their biggest rift is in their fundamental (a priori) belief and that is in the existence of God, since Buddha did not believe in Brahma. In a sense he was the first existentialist, because he thought that even if God does exist it's up to you to pull yourself out of the mud.

[blazeofglory]

Ther are some scholars who looked at the striking similarities between the sayings of Jesus and Buddha and concluded that Jesus may have borrowed heavily from a Buddhist/Hindu influence in the Middle East during his day. Marcus Borg put out a book in which their sayings are compared, with Jesus' words on one page and Buddha's on the facing page. There are many striking comparisons between the two. I would say their biggest rift is in their fundamental (a priori) belief and that is in the existence of God, since Buddha did not believe in Brahma. In a sense he was the first existentialist, because he thought that even if God does exist it's up to you to pull yourself out of the mud.

There were many great saints and the Buddha and Christ both were saints in fact. Whether they were Gods is a matter of discussion and all of us living at this epoch in history can not in point of fact subscribe to the very existence of God. Even if one believes in the existence of God it is something to be kept to onelsef privately.

Yes the Buddha was honest and he did not say what he too was unsure of. Whereas people worship him as a God, ironically he never spoke of the existence of God. How will our world be wonderful if no one makes a pretension or a thing of falsification.

Maybe the Buddha did not speak about the existence of God, for he might have thought that this would be a subject man might find out of his comprehension. That is why he made a recommendation of courses of living. Maybe he said if only we walk on the course he recommended we might slowly we could fathom the meaning of life and the existence pf something that sets everything in order.

Christ and the Buddha subscribe to one thing in common, that is non violence.

[Granny5]

Why would you say that we must keep our belief in God to ourself? I think most people are very vocal about their belief or disbelief in God. Even here on LitNet, most people offer their opinions. I don't understand what you mean by
"Even if one believes in the existence of God it is something to be kept to onelsef privately."

[Noisms]

Ther are some scholars who looked at the striking similarities between the sayings of Jesus and Buddha and concluded that Jesus may have borrowed heavily from a Buddhist/Hindu influence in the Middle East during his day. Marcus Borg put out a book in which their sayings are compared, with Jesus' words on one page and Buddha's on the facing page. There are many striking comparisons between the two. I would say their biggest rift is in their fundamental (a priori) belief and that is in the existence of God, since Buddha did not believe in Brahma. In a sense he was the first existentialist, because he thought that even if God does exist it's up to you to pull yourself out of the mud.

I'd say that a bigger rift was that Christ claimed divinity for himself!

The similarities seem very superficial to me. Treat your neighbour as you would treat yourself; all religions teach that. The two faiths' metaphysical aspects in fact couldn't be more different.

[Dark Star]

All religions teach that?

You're painting with a bit of a broad brush...

[Ananda]

Remember that Buddhists believe in no-self and Mind Only. Every thing is dependent on cause and effect. Therefore, every sound, taste, touch, sound, smell, is depending on another thing. As such, every sound, etc. is empty. There is no you, no self, in Buddhism. There is no soul, per se. These are all things that your mind creates to distinguish between "you" and "me," "us" and "them." The universal truth, however, is that there is no difference between you and me. The mind's grasping of the duality of things is what keeps people in the cycle of birth and re-birth, letting go of that duality leads to Nirvana.

That said, Christianity believes in the self. It teaches that there is a "me" that has a final destination, heaven or hell, and that it will be judged according to what it does separate from other people. Then you will wind up in a one of the good or bad places for all eternity. Yet in Buddhism there is no such thing as an unchanging thing. Everything is impermanent. Christianity says, however, that God is unchanging and permanent, and that once we get to heaven we're there for good.

Yes there are many ideas that Christianity and Buddhism share in common. They booth believe in the ideas of loving your neighbor as well as your enemy. Who can argue with the Sermon on the Mount, or with the idea that suffering in this live is caused by our attachment to things? But one religion is static and the other is not. One should also keep in mind that where Buddhism does not even believe in a God, if there were a God in Buddhism, he/she would be subject to change.

These two systems of thinking are so different that the question, "Can one be a Christan and Buddhist," is like asking whether a fish can also be a sound. Like Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity still have not been reconciled, these two religions are founded on fundamentally different principles of perception.

[email protected]

[Pendragon]

Without any intent to stir up trouble, wouldn't it be a controdiction in terms?

[amalia1985]

Perhaps, if we put all the metaphysics and clearly religious themes aside, we can view the two religions, not as "religions" with the literal sense of the word, but as a way of life. In that case, I will agree with blazeofglory. Peace, brotherhood, and love are the key words, here. What more can we want in terms of living?

[amanda_isabel]

well, i find that religion is baically about being a better person, so i don't see why someone can't be of different religions in this aspect. but when it comes down to it, like restrictions socially, physically, etc., there has to be one dominant religion. so being both christian and buddhist is alright but i'd have to say that one has to be more dominant in a person.

[Redzeppelin]

Christ and the Buddha subscribe to one thing in common, that is non violence.

Then how do you account for Christ's forceful clearing of the temple (Matt 21:13, Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46) especially in John 2:15: "There He dound seated in the temple dealers in cattle, sheep, and pigeons; also money-changers; so, making a whip out of cords, He drove them all out of the temple...poured out the money-changers' coins and overturned the tables." I think that qualifies as "violence."


well, i find that religion is baically about being a better person, so i don't see why someone can't be of different religions in this aspect. but when it comes down to it, like restrictions socially, physically, etc., there has to be one dominant religion. so being both christian and buddhist is alright but i'd have to say that one has to be more dominant in a person.

"Being a better person" is one of the benefits of religion, but that is not its total value - if so, than any moral code would suffice; religion's true value is that it offers an eternal life in the presence of our Creator. "Being good" is fine, but it's not the sole object. There will actually be people in heaven who - for the most part - probably did not live lives that we would call "good."

[NikolaiI]

Without any intent to stir up trouble, wouldn't it be a controdiction in terms?

The biggest difference between the two for me is that the Buddha was more scientific, which I find to be more useful. The Buddha's talks, for instance, like the one on Mindfulness, which begins: Mind is the forerunner of all actions. Like he was interested in explaining what the world was, in philosophy, as well as being a moral preacher.

I think, in Buddhism, ultimately, it is considered ignorant to think of one thing as Buddhist, and one thing as Christian, when the "things" aren't even "things" in themselves. There seems to be more absolutism in Christianity. I was taught these words, gosh darnit, and they reflect reality. A tree is a TREE, and you can see it with your own eyes!

My own interpretation of Christianity is that it should be almost identical to Buddhism. Yes, there are the holy scriptures, but they are misunderstood often as the Word of God. The "Word" is more like the Source, or the fundamental base of being. I'm not sure if this is Presbyterian ideas, or what. Anyway, yes there is some of the Word in the bible, but the Word is wordless, for one, and timeless...all of that- so it should not be ABOUT words!

I am probably influenced some by a book I read by Henri Nouwen called "The Way of the Heart." It talks about silence, solitude and prayer, with the example of the desert fathers (St. Anthony and others)- written to Christian ministers; anyway, it's all very mystical...I loved it. So it's not about words. Not at all.

Then, of course, we have the big distinction of how some Christians believe only Christians go to heaven, while other believe that people from other faiths go as well...so we can't put all Christians in one side or the other. Some say that worshipping Allah is just another way of worship, while others say that Christ is the one, true path. Obviously it's very arrogant to presume knowledge of who goes to heaven- as well as assuming knowledge of the ultimate good and evil, which we do so whimsically?

So, I think Christianity should be interpreted to be more like Buddhism, more about God, and the Word, and not about politics or divisions, and I think in Buddhism, correct understanding shows we are not separate from other people, so the divisions are all illusion. A contradiction of terms doesn't mean anything in the eyes of God or the universe, because all our terminology doesn't amount to squat; it's just us laying terms on things (not to say that we made everything up!) :)

[Starving Buddha]

I have come to understand that there is only one spiritual message that is spread through all the different faiths. They all teach the same thing, so it really doesn't matter what belief system you adhere to. Jesus taught Buddhism. The same archetypal symbols present in any religion are found in all religions. It is only because we seek to maintain our own traditions and hang on to folk ideas that we fail to see that other religions have the same elements. God is universal no matter how you consider the concept.

[NikolaiI]

I have come to understand that there is only one spiritual message that is spread through all the different faiths. They all teach the same thing, so it really doesn't matter what belief system you adhere to. Jesus taught Buddhism. The same archetypal symbols present in any religion are found in all religions. It is only because we seek to maintain our own traditions and hang on to folk ideas that we fail to see that other religions have the same elements. God is universal no matter how you consider the concept.

Welcome to the forum, Starving. I saw you join, and I was actually wondering where'd you post first :) I hope you stay with us a long time.
Nik

[Starving Buddha]

Thank you!

[Pendragon]

I have come to understand that there is only one spiritual message that is spread through all the different faiths. They all teach the same thing, so it really doesn't matter what belief system you adhere to. Jesus taught Buddhism. The same archetypal symbols present in any religion are found in all religions. It is only because we seek to maintain our own traditions and hang on to folk ideas that we fail to see that other religions have the same elements. God is universal no matter how you consider the concept.I will agree with the last line of your statement anyway, mon ami. But "Jesus taught Buddhism?" It is not strange then, that Jesus, who was careful in His teaching to give credit to those He quoted, never once credits Buddah? The only thing similar in the two religions is that both teach a simple life. For the Buddhist, enlightment is obtained by ones own actions and decisions in life. For the Christian, Salvation is obtained when one realizes that the best one can do is not good enough and one must rely on the Grace of God through the Blood of Jesus. They were first called Christians at Antioch because they were "Christ-like" in their actions. Buddhists came into being from Siddhartha Gautama, hereafter referred to as "the Buddha" , around 5th century BCE. Why? Because they imitated The Buddha.

[Starving Buddha]

I will agree with the last line of your statement anyway, mon ami. But "Jesus taught Buddhism?" It is not strange then, that Jesus, who was careful in His teaching to give credit to those He quoted, never once credits Buddah? The only thing similar in the two religions is that both teach a simple life. For the Buddhist, enlightment is obtained by ones own actions and decisions in life. For the Christian, Salvation is obtained when one realizes that the best one can do is not good enough and one must rely on the Grace of God through the Blood of Jesus. They were first called Christians at Antioch because they were "Christ-like" in their actions. Buddhists came into being from Siddhartha Gautama, hereafter referred to as "the Buddha" , around 5th century BCE. Why? Because they imitated The Buddha.

Well, not so strange if you consider that the words spoken by Jesus have been handed down to us through the filter of history. There are lost writings from India which speak of a man named Isus who was from Palestine at exactly the time of "Jesus' lost years..." Perhaps Jesus did learn Buddhism. Since Palestine was a very cosmopolitan area, bring in the ideas of beliefs all over the world, it is not inconceivable that Jesus would have been exposed to Buddhism. As with all great spiritual figures, they speak to the people through the psymbolism that the people will understand. To Jesus' people he spoke in terms of folk ideas based on the Hebrew belief system. That he never credited "Buddha" is may be because he choose to make his message specifically "Jewish."
The similarities do not just include a comparison between Xianity and Buddhism, but the mystical aspect of every religion. They are all teaching the same thing. Islam, Zoroastrianism, the mythologies of the American Indians... There is only one spiritual message that is delivered in various forms to the mind in ways that it is able to receive it. Which is to say, the psymbols are always the same, it is only the form they take that appears different.

[Pendragon]

Well, not so strange if you consider that the words spoken by Jesus have been handed down to us through the filter of history. There are lost writings from India which speak of a man named Isus who was from Palestine at exactly the time of "Jesus' lost years..." Perhaps Jesus did learn Buddhism. Since Palestine was a very cosmopolitan area, bring in the ideas of beliefs all over the world, it is not inconceivable that Jesus would have been exposed to Buddhism. As with all great spiritual figures, they speak to the people through the psymbolism that the people will understand. To Jesus' people he spoke in terms of folk ideas based on the Hebrew belief system. That he never credited "Buddha" is may be because he choose to make his message specifically "Jewish."
The similarities do not just include a comparison between Xianity and Buddhism, but the mystical aspect of every religion. They are all teaching the same thing. Islam, Zoroastrianism, the mythologies of the American Indians... There is only one spiritual message that is delivered in various forms to the mind in ways that it is able to receive it. Which is to say, the psymbols are always the same, it is only the form they take that appears different.To be perfectly honest, yes, I am aware of these writings. I am assuming by "lost years", you refer to the time between His birth and the beginning of His ministry. Jesus came as a poor man, a carpenter. I see no reason to suppose He had the means to travel out of Israel. Nor that He had a large education, for the Priests at the Temple wondered at His authority, asking who taught Him. If He had “disappeared” for a good while to a foreign land they would have likely noticed, as they seemed to know every detail about His life and threw it in His face. The Hebrew spelling of His name is Yeshua, I believe, definately not Isus, which is more of a Latin spelling. But let us not quarrel:

Rom.14
[5] One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Note the part of the verse I highlighted.

God Bless

Pen


http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/Peace.gif

[Starving Buddha]

To be perfectly honest, yes, I am aware of these writings. I am assuming by "lost years", you refer to the time between His birth and the beginning of His ministry. Jesus came as a poor man, a carpenter. I see no reason to suppose He had the means to travel out of Israel. Nor that He had a large education, for the Priests at the Temple wondered at His authority, asking who taught Him. If He had “disappeared” for a good while to a foreign land they would have likely noticed, as they seemed to know every detail about His life and threw it in His face. The Hebrew spelling of His name is Yeshua, I believe, definately not Isus, which is more of a Latin spelling. But let us not quarrel:

Rom.14
[5] One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Note the part of the verse I highlighted.

God Bless

Pen


http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/Peace.gif

The highlighted quote is perfect! That is the universal message. It is up to each individual to seek it out. If you look for it, you will find it. "Knock and the door will be opened..." But how many of us stand on the threshold of the door and fear walking through???

Much Metta my friend

[Pendragon]

The highlighted quote is perfect! That is the universal message. It is up to each individual to seek it out. If you look for it, you will find it. "Knock and the door will be opened..." But how many of us stand on the threshold of the door and fear walking through???

Much Metta my friendThat also, is a true verse, found two places in the Bible:

Matt.7
[7] Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Luke.11
[9] And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

Many fear to knock or to ask, because they are unsure of what lies beyond the open door. The question should be: What are you seeking?

Matt.7
[8] For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Luke.11
[10] For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Are people afraid they might find the very thing for which they are looking?

God Bless

[Timur]

At the end of the day, all religions come down to this-finding everlasting peace and happiness.Some people will never find it in this life, whatever religion or combination of religions they follow, Buddhism Christianity, Islam or whatever.Some people may find it without following any religion,by only seeing the truth.( Siddhartha in Hermann Hess's novel). So in a sense your question is too shallow and the answer to that question does nothing to enlighten

[Redzeppelin]

At the end of the day, all religions come down to this-finding everlasting peace and happiness.Some people will never find it in this life, whatever religion or combination of religions they follow, Buddhism Christianity, Islam or whatever.Some people may find it without following any religion,by only seeing the truth.( Siddhartha in Hermann Hess's novel). So in a sense your question is too shallow and the answer to that question does nothing to enlighten


Your response indicates that you see all religions as merely some means to an earthly end; that is not so - and not all religions are created equal. Religion in and of itself does not contain Truth - only the divine being that that religion is predicated on can contain Truth. Truth is God - so following Truth (capital T) always leads one to God.

[Pendragon]

Your response indicates that you see all religions as merely some means to an earthly end; that is not so - and not all religions are created equal. Religion in and of itself does not contain Truth - only the divine being that that religion is predicated on can contain Truth. Truth is God - so following Truth (capital T) always leads one to God.Not exactly, Red. God is truth, yes, but things that can be truth are not of necessity God.

Prov.16
[25] There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Perhaps this way is based on something known to be the truth. So it must be God's way, right? No.

Isa.55
[9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

God's standard of truth is greater than human standard. We place truth in terms of what we can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. God's truth goes beyond that into the realm of Faith. Many follow only what they can see and we cannot deny that what they have is truth. It simply places God out of the picture. So following just truth alone will not lead one to God. One must dare to reach beyond one's senses and take hold of Faith to touch God.

God Bless.

Pen

[Redzeppelin]

God is Truth (capital T); yes we can claim truth (lower case t), but true reality is God. The search for Truth (not the claim of truth) leads always towards God.

I don't think my post and yours are at odds, because I'm not claiming that humanity has, or can completely know the Truth - but if we seek God and attempt to know Him, He will reveal Truth to us, because the revelation of God is the revelation of Truth.

[NikolaiI]

I agree with Dale; all he's saying is that God views things a different way than we do. Our view is short-sighted. Even as well as we understand right and wrong, with our best judgment we could still be wrong. The idea is that the end result is good, according to God's plan. Even if some bad things happen, God has a plan and everything that happens is according to his will. This isn't a contradiction of free will, because it's a rather abstract thing. In Buddhism the idea is to always sow seeds of enlightenment, and if we always do this, the seeds will grow. It's common sense and logical. That is, I believe, something like the gist of what Dale's saying; although I don't really agree with his last statement, One must dare to reach beyond one's senses and take hold of Faith to touch God.

Anyway about the right and wrong; it's like we don't see the full consequences. We don't see what happens after or later, and we are always being proven wrong, by things working out or something like that. And, of course, there's suffering, and shouldn't we try to alleviate it? Ah, but that requires taking up the cross, doesn't it?

Anyway, again about the right and wrong; it's very similar to Shin Buddhism, and in that, they describe it in terms of self-power and other-power. Interesting stuff, any Christian should read, because it's so similar to Christian philosophy; of original sin, and self-power and God.

[weepingforloman]

Regarding the truth issue: surely, if there is a God like Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe, who created the world ex nihilo, who was there before all else, He must be the source of reality. Thus, anything that is real is according to God, anything that is unreal is not. The question that follows is not, is anything true from God, but, what is real?

[birdFlu]

I am of Christian background and at thesame time Buddhist, Atheist and a devout worshipper of Flying Spaghetti Monster - don't think the above clash

[Thinkerr]

Hmmmm.... I think they do. Christianity definently worships God, clashing with agnostics. I don't object to being devoted to the "flying spagetti monster" but that might just be another crazy thing, like Santa Claus.

[weepingforloman]

I am of Christian background and at thesame time Buddhist, Atheist and a devout worshipper of Flying Spaghetti Monster - don't think the above clash
Of course they don't, if you are content with the "Christianity-and-water" approach, or, as it is sometimes called, the "humanitarian gospel." If you accept only the moral teachings of all the religions, they do appear quite similar. But then, so does the teaching of almost all moralists, atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Spaghetti-Monsterist. Let's not point out the obvious and call it profound- of course the moral teachings of all religions are the same. But, all religions are NOT the same.

[blazeofglory]

God is too complex to be defined; you cannot define a person, so how could you possibly define the source of all personhood? Religion does have an agreed upon meaning... Do you mean all people should agree on which religion to follow? I agree with that as well, and I think it should be Christianity.

Why has to be Christianity? Is not a narrow perspective? Let us have broadmindedness? Of course other religions may have to say something indeed.

Every religion is equal too and to say one is superior or to recommend one particular religion is something that has to do with inadequate understanding.

Let us come out of the box and think openly. All humans are the same irrespective of which color you are and which nations you are in.

[blazeofglory]

This is something that's very interesting to me, and I'd love to have some intelligent conversations about it on here, surely with people of various faiths.

It's something I'm not sure I've often met with agreement on. There is one person I know however, who first told me he belonged to different faiths. A man in a Buddhist monastery who was there for an interfaith community organization meeting, who told me he was Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, as well as others. I'm the same way as him, except I'm only mainly Christian, Buddhist and Rastafarian.

Can a Christian be Buddhist? I've been told adamently, almost vehemently, no, and just thought I'd see what others think. I'm posting this thread because I realized I was talking about it on other threads where it was off-topic...

*sigh* It's a question of labels...

Nikolai, of course one can be both at the same time. I am a Hindu by birth> I read the Bible and have entered church and sat at the congregation. I got moved by Christ's teachings. So do I feel comfortable with Buddhism, Mohammedanism, even paganism or Zen.

I am not a Hindu notwithstanding the fact that I love to read the Gita and the Vedas.

Nikolai, all religions are common to us, and at birth we do not belong to religions and we get attached to them or get indoctrinated into religions.

[weepingforloman]

Why has to be Christianity? Is not a narrow perspective? Let us have broadmindedness? Of course other religions may have to say something indeed.

Every religion is equal too and to say one is superior or to recommend one particular religion is something that has to do with inadequate understanding.

Let us come out of the box and think openly. All humans are the same irrespective of which color you are and which nations you are in.
Of course we are the same regardless of color or nation. That is logically a given. But our individual mentality, values, etc. make us different. I think it should be Christianity because I believe that Christianity, and not the other religions, is correct. Being "broad minded" sounds very well and good, but it is a logical fallacy- if there is a God, He must have a definite character. If He has a definite character, then every religion except one must be incorrect- or even all the religions, if we don't have the truth at all. Of course, if the atheists are right, then there is no God, and that is also a definite characteristic: nonexistence. But let's put aside this weak talk of the religions as "one."

[blazeofglory]

Of course we are the same regardless of color or nation. That is logically a given. But our individual mentality, values, etc. make us different. I think it should be Christianity because I believe that Christianity, and not the other religions, is correct. Being "broad minded" sounds very well and good, but it is a logical fallacy- if there is a God, He must have a definite character. If He has a definite character, then every religion except one must be incorrect- or even all the religions, if we don't have the truth at all. Of course, if the atheists are right, then there is no God, and that is also a definite characteristic: nonexistence. But let's put aside this weak talk of the religions as "one."

To say that Christianity is correct and the rest is incorrect is a childish notion and that idea that one's religion is correct and the rest are incorrect is a pretty unconvincing idea and only those who are ignorant and have little knowledge about other religions subscribe to this idea.

Please read the Gita, and some other Vedic literatures deeply your attitudes to and knowledge about other religions will be broad.

To say one' s religion is good and not others is a very primitive ideas.
In today's world to think that only Christianity is correct and others are incorrect is a fundamentalist idea. There is nothing to substantiate this point.

I think you have yet to read Buddhism. Christianity is spread to Asian and African countries on the strength of money through their missionaries. Poor people are easily led.

Please, do read other religious texts.

[Nightshade]

Please remember to be nice and respect other peoples personal opinions and beliefs.

[weepingforloman]

To say that Christianity is correct and the rest is incorrect is a childish notion and that idea that one's religion is correct and the rest are incorrect is a pretty unconvincing idea and only those who are ignorant and have little knowledge about other religions subscribe to this idea.

Please read the Gita, and some other Vedic literatures deeply your attitudes to and knowledge about other religions will be broad.

To say one' s religion is good and not others is a very primitive ideas.
In today's world to think that only Christianity is correct and others are incorrect is a fundamentalist idea. There is nothing to substantiate this point.

I think you have yet to read Buddhism. Christianity is spread to Asian and African countries on the strength of money through their missionaries. Poor people are easily led.

Please, do read other religious texts.
I know, perhaps, more than you think about Buddhism, Hinduism, et al. Yet I still maintain that Christianity is superior, because it is true. If I believed any of the others to be true, then I would not be so ready to say that Christianity is the greater. But isn't truth superior to untruth?

You say that it is "childish" to believe that one religion is superior to another. That is fundamentally incorrect. Of course some religions must be superior- if we may speak logically for a moment, we find ourselves with this situation: there may or may not be a God. If He is not real, then that is a fact about Him, or rather about not-Him, in which case atheism would be superior to all the religions- for it would be true. If God does exist, then He must have definite attributes- in short, dogma must be necessary. It is no use saying that His character is changeable- the bedrock of existence cannot be shifting. Therefore, some of the religions must be more true than others. One religion may or may not be entirely right, but one must at least be the closest to the truth. In which case it would be the greatest religion. I believe that Christianity is entirely true, making it the greatest of the creeds.

[NikolaiI]

How controversial! Well, at least they have not closed the thread as of yet.

We cannot really say whether a religion is superior or not, because what goes into that is mind-bogglingly complex, much too vast for us to understand. I mean, we cannot even judge between individuals, and to judge a religion then would have to take into account everything, about the religion, about all the individuals affected by the religion, directly, indirectly, or barely perceptibly, as well as everything else the religion has touched. The factors which go into something like this are too vast for us to calculate.

That is, if we really cared whether we were right or not, when we said one religion is superior. What I'm talking about is a high standard of integrity in thinking. Much higher than most, and much, much higher than simply saying one is superior without giving it any critical thinking.

Any-way, to the original question; let us back up a moment. Instead of answering yes or no, can a Christian be Buddhist, and vice-versa, let us ask about the answer, about how we could answer this question. It seems to me that we'll have some people saying yes, and then some people saying no, and then if the two sides wish to debate it, they will do so with logical arguments, trying to prove the truth of their claim. Is this all correct so far? You will forigve me for backing up like this, but it seems important to do so, to agree on a shared ground for speculation, before we go back into the speculation. So I just ask now, is it true that there will be persons who believe one way, and then persons who believe another?

[Splendour]

First of all, I'll just temporarily join the discussion above as to say: Christianity is the truthtoyou, please add in the personal part of this clause because it is important not to say it so absolutely and generally for everyone else.

Now secondly, I would also like to comment (and hopefully no one said this before me because I skipped everything between the first and the last page), that Buddhism is actually an atheist religion, contrary to popular opinions. If you read some of the Buddhist scriptures, you will find that the Buddas claim themselves as people. The world Budda, I believe in original (at least the original translation into Chinese), essentially means the "Enlightened One." Budda is not a god, and espeically not on the same concept as the Christian Jehovah. Rather, he is someone who had attained wisdom and enabled him to live in a place which we could call the Nirvana. Any ordinary man, indeed the more blended folklore version would say and ANY living thing can become a Budda. So there is no God, no Supreme Being, but us, and knowledge/wisdom. I believe there is a scripture that specifically preached the idea that the followers of Budda should NOT pray to Budda as if he is a God. All the Buddas are supposed to HELP you attain Nirvana, but ultimately it's your own effort. Buddhism also believes in a kind of "yuan"(no idea what's that in English), a kind of natural/slightly pre-determined way which life functions. The saying is that "Buddas can only deliver those who have yuan with Budda."

Buddhism also embraces all religions. I've read in places where the Buddhists say: "let the Christians be, for Christianity is there to guide them to do good." There is no fundamental conflict for a Buddhist to hold other beliefs. However, Christianity does. The last line of Christianity is to accept Jesus as your saviour, and subsequently accept the existence of the One God. Did not the whole Bible fill with the example of punishment for those who did not believe in Jehovah and bliss for those who held faith? Faith is the cornerstone of Christianity. Without it, there is no Christianity.

One more comment: Buddhism is more passive, and Christianity is more active, in their ways to allivate people's sufferings and promises of hope.

And just to answer the question, in one sentence as to what I think is the answer: A Buddhist can definitely become a Christian, but a Christian cannot be a Buddhist. Therefore, such a Buddhist/Christian can never truly be in existence.

[Mr. T]

I found this blog upon searching the compatibility of Christian and Buddhist thought and practice. I have read a substantial amount of Thomas Merton who studied this question with unquestionable passion. At the end of the day, the most interesting aspect for me is the notion that Jesus cared little for religious antics and mostly was concerned with thoughts of the heart. In that aspect - and looking at the history of the Christian faith - one can conclude that Buddhist "practices" could certainly assist in centering the soul, mind and heart on consistent Jesus "practice". The real differential comes with the ultimate faith in a Father-God, which Buddhism certainly leaves out of the equation.
I am glad I found a place to ask questions and to see others opinions. Blessings here to all who share, thank you in advance.

[Pendragon]

If one worships Christ, how can one also worship Buddha? It would seem a controdiction in theology. As Paul taught, Romans 14:5 "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. LET EVERY MAN be fully persuaded in his own mind." Why the joining of religions? Be happy in what you have decided is the best way for you. Not everyone believes in Christ, I would they did, but I cannot change how someone else believes and I refuse to judge anyone.

I cannot stress this enough, I believe there will be many surprises on Judgement Day, when one stands before one's Creator.

God Bless

Pen

[zado_k]

If one worships Christ, how can one also worship Buddha?

In traditional forms of theravada buddhism there's no worship of any kind involved. Folk buddhism in theravadin traditional countries does sometimes lapse into buddha worship but there have been continuous efforts in various places to correct this. Some Mahayana buddhist practises or beliefs might involve god or Buddha worship of one kind or another but I don't know enough about them to say.

For many theravadin buddhists there is no supernatural belief of any kind involved in buddhism.


It would seem a controdiction in theology. As Paul taught, Romans 14:5 "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. LET EVERY MAN be fully persuaded in his own mind." Why the joining of religions? Be happy in what you have decided is the best way for you. Not everyone believes in Christ, I would they did, but I cannot change how someone else believes and I refuse to judge anyone.

I cannot stress this enough, I believe there will be many surprises on Judgement Day, when one stands before one's Creator.

God Bless

Pen

Not least perhaps for the Creator...

peace and loving kindness

Z

[Pendragon]

Not least perhaps for the Creator...

peace and loving kindness

Z
Granting that God exists in the form we believe, all powerful and all-knowing why would He be surprised?

[NikolaiI]

Now secondly, I would also like to comment (and hopefully no one said this before me because I skipped everything between the first and the last page), that Buddhism is actually an atheist religion, contrary to popular opinions. If you read some of the Buddhist scriptures, you will find that the Buddas claim themselves as people. The world Budda, I believe in original (at least the original translation into Chinese), essentially means the "Enlightened One." Budda is not a god, and espeically not on the same concept as the Christian Jehovah. Rather, he is someone who had attained wisdom and enabled him to live in a place which we could call the Nirvana. Any ordinary man, indeed the more blended folklore version would say and ANY living thing can become a Budda. So there is no God, no Supreme Being, but us, and knowledge/wisdom. I believe there is a scripture that specifically preached the idea that the followers of Budda should NOT pray to Budda as if he is a God. All the Buddas are supposed to HELP you attain Nirvana, but ultimately it's your own effort. Buddhism also believes in a kind of "yuan"(no idea what's that in English), a kind of natural/slightly pre-determined way which life functions. The saying is that "Buddas can only deliver those who have yuan with Budda."

As far as I can tell it is the widely popular opinion that Buddhism is an atheistic religion. I am in disagreement with this, although I am of the opinion that most Western Buddhists do not believe in any Supreme being. The argument I have heard from American Buddhists is that "if there was a God and he was good, there would not be suffering." And yet I come across passages in scripture such as "the Buddha is equal to the realm of reality," and "the Buddha is equal to the cosmos." As the first of these especially indicates, Buddhism is definitely partly about finding out what is real, what is the source of things. Of course Buddhists themselves vary among this; my understanding is that all comes from God (bear with me) who is like a Consciousness force. God is described in Hindu scriptures as Sac-cid-ananda, Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. That is the very highest existence there is, which is also the source containing all forms.

Er well obviously I went way off topic there... back to Buddhism - Buddhists vary and some are materialists, but in the tradition of Buddhism there are dakinis, ghosts, Buddhas... Buddhas are sometimes called "Enlightening beings." I think the term Bodhisattva is similar in nature to Budda. But these are also considered to be 6 different realms (God, jealous God, human, animal, hungry ghost, and hell). If this understanding of the universe is accepted then you can see it is not the same as naturalism or atheism.

But an important question arises: what is the truth and nature of Buddhism? I do have questions about it. My own realization has been that it is true that we all have buddha-nature. Each of us at heart, if we can become enlightened, is pure, aware, blissful, etc. And if you say "our nature is buddha-nature" this means that there is nowhere you can go which is not Buddha nature. I was talking with a Geche, and we were talking about these things, and I mentioned something about the inconceivable, and he said he did not accept anything which was inconceivable, and if he ever did, he would give up his monks' robes. But my own understanding is something a bit inconceivable... the Buddha is like truth, which we are separated from because we slip into erroneous views, etc.

I know it is not a really accessible thing, but in my view it's the nature of the divine..

I am not saying Buddhism teaches worship of the divine; but if you look at, for instance, the songs of Milarepa, a great yogi; you may find similarities between him and others, especially if you are able to recognize that the source, the truth, which each are trying to find, is the same divine.

Another thing which is unclear; if Buddhists think that Buddha is nothing, or in other words just an ordinary person, why do they offer all their food to the Buddhas? Offering food is something I know about from Hinduism... in our Vaisnava sect we offer everything to Krishna before eating... it is a religious thing, the reason for it is that everything belongs to God so we should offer to Him first... this makes sense to me, yet the same thing is practiced with Buddhists, they offer all their food to the Buddhas in almost the same way. Also the same is the fact that it is 100% vegetarian, and they abstain from such items as garlic and onions as the Hindus do.

And as for worship of the Buddha... actually I went to a Buddhist Abbey here in the states - beautiful place - and they had extensive practice, including chanting powerful mantras in unison for quite a few repetitions. Quite a lot of this could be classified under "Generating positive potential," yet if someone was also dedicating it to the Supreme Lord, would that go against the teachings of Buddha?

I know I raised many questions, but I also should thank you all for posting.

I am not trying to argue with anyone, or start an argument or tell anyone they are wrong... I know I raised some esoteric subjects and you cannot learn anything about ANY of this by arguing... so thank you again. I don't mean we can't disgaree but please be respectful.

If one worships Christ, how can one also worship Buddha? It would seem a controdiction in theology. As Paul taught, Romans 14:5 "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. LET EVERY MAN be fully persuaded in his own mind." Why the joining of religions? Be happy in what you have decided is the best way for you. Not everyone believes in Christ, I would they did, but I cannot change how someone else believes and I refuse to judge anyone.

I cannot stress this enough, I believe there will be many surprises on Judgement Day, when one stands before one's Creator.

God Bless

Pen

Well as others said you aren't required (some prohibit it, eh?) to worship the Buddha. And yet in my view each are fairly true representations of the divine. Why mix you say? Well you can't get things like the Heart Sutra from the Bible, nor can you get Christ's love from Buddhism. You can't get "Om namo Narayana" from Buddhism, nor can you get "Nama Amida" from Hinduism... I greatly respect Christ as a divine teacher, a teacher of love of God and God-consciousness - my own greatest inspiration also wrote this about Christ; that we should respect him as spiritual master. However - there is a great deal which I don't know I could have learned had I not studied Buddhism and Hinduism. For instance Christ said "The Kingdom of God is within you." This is a vastly important statement! But I may not have put any stock in it or tried to seek it out at all if I had not already studied ideas about "Buddha-nature," and actually... I was fortunate enough to experience that Buddha nature.


I believe there is a scripture that specifically preached the idea that the followers of Budda should NOT pray to Budda as if he is a God. All the Buddas are supposed to HELP you attain Nirvana, but ultimately it's your own effort.

Sorry for quoting you again, but I forgot something I meant to say in reply to this. Besides the passages which describe Buddha as equal to the realm of reality, another which came to mind was a vow from Amitabha Buddha that anyone who always chanted... well, here,


As told in the Infinite Life Sutra, Hōzō (Dharamakara) Bodhisattva made 48 Great Vows promising to create a Pure Land (the Western Pure Land of Ultimate Bliss), and guaranteed rebirth in the Pure Land to anyone who would recite his name with utmost sincerity, particularly at the time of their death. Dharamakara fulfilled his 48 vows and thereafter attained Buddhahood and became Amida (Amitabha) Buddha.

http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/48-bosatsu-vows.shtml

Reciting his name, the Nembetsu, seems more an act of devotion than one of voidism.



Actually I found a couple links which may be of interest... the vows (the link above), this one (http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/amida.shtml) etc..

Ok, thank you.

http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/bosatsu-on-clouds-apsaras.shtml this is also interesting

[Wilde woman]

In traditional forms of theravada buddhism there's no worship of any kind involved.

Yes, thank you. A lot of people have the mistaken belief that we Buddhists actually worship some kind of supreme deity called the Buddha. It doesn't help that fat, smiling Buddha idols adorn all sorts of Asian restaurants to perpetuate the belief. It's ignorant, condescending, and such a patronizing example of (some) Westerners imposing their JudeoChristian-centric beliefs onto a belief system they obviously NEVER took the time to understand. (I have some personal beef with this. I grew up Buddhist in TEXAS. Yeah, imagine that. I cannot tell you how many times I was approached by hardcore evangelists asking if I've accepted Jesus Christ into my life and then telling me I'm going to hell for "worshipping a false idol." PISS OFF!) :flare:

Now that I've gotten that off my chest....

This is an interesting question that Nikolai poses, but I think the two religions are mutually exclusive. The basic tenet of Christianity is that Christ is the ONLY way to salvation, no matter how virtuously one lives his/her life otherwise. The basic tenet of Buddhism is that anyone has the potential to become a buddha (an enlightened one) and he/she is solely responsible for achieving nirvana. There is little to no intervention by gods or deities of any kind. That doesn't mean there aren't supernatural beings in certain branches of Buddhism (there are), but they certainly don't determine or judge the fate of a given individual the way the Judeo-Christian god does.

So given the very philosophies of the two belief systems, no I don't think a person could be both Christian and Buddhist. If they claim they are, they're neither truly one nor the other.

[NikolaiI]

Thank you very much for your post, Wilde woman. First let me say I sympathize with you in your encounters with overbearing, misguided Christians. I hope it will not be a problem though because I have very rarely seen anything but harmony between members of different faiths.

I would like to make a couple of points or present ideas. The first is the question - what is Buddha? What is Buddha-nature? Importantly, what are Buddha-lands? As I understand it there are infinite boddhisattvas and Buddhas. Also I believe in the existence of Buddha-lands. Where is the existence of Buddha-lands? Rather - what is the existence of them? Is life temporary, is there immortal life? In my understanding Buddha or enlightenment is the Buddhist's version of Truth.

In my understanding, Buddha-lands are the same as Buddha's body; each Buddha is simultaneously the same as all others, but they are also individual. Buddha-lands are not somewhere else, nor are they internal; and yet they are internal as well as external. If our nature is Buddha-nature, then our natural place is Buddha-lands - at our core is not something void, but it is wisdom and enlightenment.

This is just my own understanding and although others may be atheists I don't wish to argue about that... in fact arguing about something like the soul, or God, or anything really gets absolutely nowhere. We can only share our experiences to a limited extent. One problem is that "we" - whether we are soul (atma) or no soul (anatma), neither one can be described by words. And yet when we try to attempt it, people say "ah, that doesn't fit in with our constructed language, so it must be false"; when actually there is mystery above and beyond our linguistic contstructs. After all, one Buddhist mantra is "Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Sva," or "Gone, Gone Beyond, Gone Completely Beyond, All enlightened, So be it!"

Another good question would be, could one be Hindu and Buddhist both?

One has to go no farther than the word Om to see that Hinduism and Buddhism are similar: There are thousands (millions?) of mantras in Hinduism which use the term Om. "Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya," for instance. A Bodhisattva is very akin to a mahasattva. And one doesn't have to look farther than a Hindu mystic to see the relationship between Hinduism and Christianty:


Words are the only Jewels I possess
Words are the only Clothes that I wear
Words are the only food That sustains my life
Words are the only wealth I distribute among people
Says Tuka Witness the Word He is God
I worship Him With my words

The poems of Tuka are certainly different from the poems of the yogi Milarepa, but who would I be to say one is greater than the other?

Consider the above poem in relationship to John 1.1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In conclusion I would like to speak again of a certain point. Each of these three religions, except for Buddhism, teach of the divine. Hinduism and Christianity teach love of God, and God consciousness. Hinduism is not atheist or polytheist or theist, though of all the Hindus I know almost all are theist. And many also consider Christ to be Gurudeva, or divine teacher. But what I would really like to say is that each of these teaches something very similar: in our heart, God resides. Now I know as a Buddhist you might not agree with this, if you don't believe in a Deity. But consider the similarities. Hindus teach that God exists as Bhagavan, Supersoul, and Brahman; in the Buddhist Flower Ornament Sutra, Buddhas are actually called Bhagavans. Buddhism (the scriptures, and not all of the monks or lay, but certain of them; and certainly as far as I can understand, the Buddhist masters and yogis from before our time) teaches about Buddha-nature and Buddha-lands. This is incredibly esoteric, and it is not simply "do not be attached and you will not suffer." What does it mean that our nature is Buddha nature? I know I have said this perhaps too many times, but I am only doing so beacuse I believe it was a true understanding and it is the result of a great path: Buddha-lands mean that our nature is Buddha-nature, and Buddha-nature means that our natural places is Buddha-lands. This means that inside us is Buddha-lands, Buddha-nature, and also if Buddha-lands exist anywhere; then they are basically the highest state of existence - equal in my mind to Satyaloka or Goloka-Vrindavana, etc., in Hinduism. Now what does Christianity have to do with any of this? Christ taught that the Kingdom of God is within. Now I agree with a poster above, who said Christ did not mess with religious antics. I would also say that, in the Kingdom of God, there is room for all! How can a place such as the Kingdom of God not include all who are pure and seek God? Or how can it not include Buddha-nature?

Thus there are room for all beings to live in harmony, both in this world and the next. And we should release some of our hostility for those who believe differently, although I am not saying there was any hostility to begin with.

For example just consider the 16th Vow of Hozo Bosatsu, who later becomes Amida Buddha,


If, when I attain Buddhahood, humans and devas in my land should even hear of any wrongdoing, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment.

http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/48-bosatsu-vows.shtml

[Tyler Self]

I am a Christian and studied Buddhism extensively, and came to the conclusion that the two absolutely cannot be mixed. The main reason being that the two have two completely different centers. In Buddhism, you are supposed to save yourself through the Four Noble Truths. However, in Christianity, the Bible says that it is impossible for man to save himself.

[NikolaiI]

I am a Christian and studied Buddhism extensively, and came to the conclusion that the two absolutely cannot be mixed. The main reason being that the two have two completely different centers. In Buddhism, you are supposed to save yourself through the Four Noble Truths. However, in Christianity, the Bible says that it is impossible for man to save himself.

Well, in my understanding it is of vital importance in Buddhism to take shelter of the three Jewels, the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, and especially to never speak against these. Of course actually Buddhism is vast and there are many different understandings and practices of it.

[Tyler Self]

^^Perhaps, but the one thing they all share is the fact that a man saves himself through these teachings.

[NikolaiI]

In Hinduism there is a parable of an elephant and a fish. The elephant is great and powerful and the fish is much smaller and less powerful. But when the elephant is in a strong current in the river, it cannot swim past it. The fish, on the other hand, can swim upriver very easily. What is the reason the fish can swim upriver easily? Because he takes shelter of the river. If, in Buddhism, one takes shelter of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, he can learn to transform his mind, thus releasing himself from suffering. The Buddhist idea is that everything is led by the mind. So therefore if one acts from a pure heart, or a developed mind, it is unaffected by agitations, just like a "well-thatched house is not penetrated by water."

My point is that one is taking shelter of the Buddha. This cannot be meangingful if someone believes the Buddha is an ordinary person. That's one reason why I am trying to dispel the idea that Buddhism is identical to naturalism.

[NikolaiI]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=158AWXhDdZI

[pagebypage]

I am a Christian and studied Buddhism extensively, and came to the conclusion that the two absolutely cannot be mixed. The main reason being that the two have two completely different centers. In Buddhism, you are supposed to save yourself through the Four Noble Truths. However, in Christianity, the Bible says that it is impossible for man to save himself.


I have to ditto Tyler Self here with the exception that I'm not a professing Christian. The worldviews are not compatible. Granted, Christians can incorporate parts of Buddhism (or Hinduism) without a fatal impact on their basic tenets (reincarnation comes to mind) and Buddhists can easily follow their path in a universe that includes a "God as Person" since, being non-theistic (not atheistic as misidentified here), it has no impact. But if your postulating someone who holds as true both systems simultaneously I have to vote with the no's.

[NikolaiI]

I have to ditto Tyler Self here with the exception that I'm not a professing Christian. The worldviews are not compatible. Granted, Christians can incorporate parts of Buddhism (or Hinduism) without a fatal impact on their basic tenets (reincarnation comes to mind) and Buddhists can easily follow their path in a universe that includes a "God as Person" since, being non-theistic (not atheistic as misidentified here), it has no impact. But if your postulating someone who holds as true both systems simultaneously I have to vote with the no's.

But if you are Christian and you believe what Christ taught, that "the Kingdom of God is within," or if you are Buddhist and you believe that our pure nature is Buddha-nature, connected with Buddha-lands, both of these views are similarly infinite in nature, how can there be divions or restrictions in such a place?

[pagebypage]

But if you are Christian and you believe what Christ taught, that "the Kingdom of God is within," or if you are Buddhist and you believe that our pure nature is Buddha-nature, connected with Buddha-lands, both of these views are similarly infinite in nature, how can there be divions or restrictions in such a place?

Well you could be right. I still think the basic premises of both faiths are mutually exclusive but it gets down to a matter of definitions, doesn't it. I use to study a lot of theology and that is all that that boils down to--a bunch of mental concepts and definitions and a whole lot of people fighting over them.

I always considered the kingdom of God stuff as just an acceptance of the rule of God. If you want to make it an actual mental state go ahead. I can't say it isn't but I think your reading more into the scripture than is there. As for this Buddha-nature pure land stuff I haven't the foggiest idea what that is supposed to be. When you get into the Mahayana and Zen schools you get a lot of strange concepts. When I studied Buddhism I restricted myself to the Pali cannon and none of that stuff applies. My professor and meditation instructor thought it was nonsense and I suppose I've carried that bias with me.

So we find ourselves playing theological ping-pong once more, a verbal argument over definitions and it looks like neither one of us is going to concede on definitions. Fun stuff:lol:

[Tyler Self]

But if you are Christian and you believe what Christ taught, that "the Kingdom of God is within," or if you are Buddhist and you believe that our pure nature is Buddha-nature, connected with Buddha-lands, both of these views are similarly infinite in nature, how can there be divions or restrictions in such a place?

I would recommend reading Leo Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" and you'll see what that phrase really means.

No one wins at semantics anyway. It just appears to me that to equate that phrase to Buddhism is to start outside of the Bible to interpret a message within the Bible.

[NikolaiI]

Well you could be right. I still think the basic premises of both faiths are mutually exclusive but it gets down to a matter of definitions, doesn't it. I use to study a lot of theology and that is all that that boils down to--a bunch of mental concepts and definitions and a whole lot of people fighting over them.

I always considered the kingdom of God stuff as just an acceptance of the rule of God. If you want to make it an actual mental state go ahead. I can't say it isn't but I think your reading more into the scripture than is there. As for this Buddha-nature pure land stuff I haven't the foggiest idea what that is supposed to be. When you get into the Mahayana and Zen schools you get a lot of strange concepts. When I studied Buddhism I restricted myself to the Pali cannon and none of that stuff applies. My professor and meditation instructor thought it was nonsense and I suppose I've carried that bias with me.

So we find ourselves playing theological ping-pong once more, a verbal argument over definitions and it looks like neither one of us is going to concede on definitions. Fun stuff:lol:

Pagebypage, I don't think I have said anything which was evocative of argument. I merely said, if both of them teach there is an infinite world within, how can there be divisions there?

[NikolaiI]

Tyler, I respect Tolstoy and I agree with him on some things (like with his statement, "as long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be wars), but as I said, I am not here to argue, and if I acted like that I apologize. We can discuss without argument, for discussion is communication while argument is specifically trying to gain superiority over someone.

Having said that, I will simply clarify what I understand Christ to have meant. In words; though the essence of the subject is not a mental state, nor is it defined by words; I understand it to mean there is an infinite world within. If you disagee this is fine. It may be we cannot have any useful further discourse. In which case it is better to move on rather than argue.

[Tyler Self]

No one is trying "to gain superiority." Where i'm from a debate and an argument are practically synonyms, so if I said such then I apologize. I realize there is a difference but you can thank Dixie for diction. :)

Anyway, if you don't mind, I would like it if you took your idea a bit further. If both faiths claim an infinite world within (if that is indeed what they are mutually saying) then I have to add that even if they both do, it does not mean they are mutual at all. For example, an Evolutionist will say that the strongest survive. A Satanist may say this also. Yet these are two completely different ideas that just happen to show a correlation at one point. But to draw a link is to walk a thin line of post-hoc.

[pagebypage]

Pagebypage, I don't think I have said anything which was evocative of argument. I merely said, if both of them teach there is an infinite world within, how can there be divisions there?

:lol:Sure seems like an argumentative statement to me. Christianity isn't internal--salvation doesn't lie within. You're reading into the scripture what you want to read in the scripture. It suits how you want it all to be. The faith believes salvation is a transcendental (thank God for spell check!) state. That is quite different. As for Buddhism, the key to salvation is understanding the mind but I don't know any Buddhist that believe that salvation is the mind or that the mind is infinite in nature. In Buddhism the mind is actually considered a sense--like taste or touch.

[NikolaiI]

No one is trying "to gain superiority." Where i'm from a debate and an argument are practically synonyms, so if I said such then I apologize. I realize there is a difference but you can thank Dixie for diction. :)

Anyway, if you don't mind, I would like it if you took your idea a bit further. If both faiths claim an infinite world within (if that is indeed what they are mutually saying) then I have to add that even if they both do, it does not mean they are mutual at all. For example, an Evolutionist will say that the strongest survive. A Satanist may say this also. Yet these are two completely different ideas that just happen to show a correlation at one point. But to draw a link is to walk a thin line of post-hoc.

Ok, no worries then :D - but I won't give you books to read if you don't give me books to read, ok? :)

Now your analogy seems flawed for a couple of reasons. One, they are saying very different things. "The strongest survive" is quite different from "the infinite exists."

[NikolaiI]

:lol:Sure seems like an argumentative statement to me. Christianity isn't internal--salvation doesn't lie within. You're reading into the scripture what you want to read in the scripture. It suits how you want it all to be. The faith believes salvation is a transcendental (thank God for spell check!) state. That is quite different. As for Buddhism, the key to salvation is understanding the mind but I don't know any Buddhist that believe that salvation is the mind or that the mind is infinite in nature. In Buddhism the mind is actually considered a sense--like taste or touch.

I meant it to be one to open up discussion, rather than argument.

To both you and Tyler; you may be right. I am going to drop it for now, maybe come back to it later. Thank you for posting.

I honestly wasn't trying to make the Bible suit me. It was my own understanding of that verse, whether it is right or wrong, and I do admit it could be wrong.

Anyway you are correct that Buddhists consider the mind to be the sixth sense. But there is more to Buddhism than it appears you know about. Not all Buddhists are the same (shouldn't this go without saying?). For instance in Pure Land Buddhism the central figure is Amitabha, Buddha of Infinite Light.

Speaking of reading into scripture what you wish to be, I would be wary of that myself if I were you. For instance you may have some idea that Buddhists don't believe in God, and this may be true for as many Buddhists as you will ever meet in your life, but they might be making the same error in propogating something which isn't entirely true. Not about God; but simply about saying "Buddhism is like this," the reasoning for which is "as far as I have understood Buddhism, everyone always discounts accounts of supernatural happenings." Even though the stories of people who attain Buddhahood or almost attain it - for example, one person met Buddha Vajrayogini, female Buddha of Wisdom, 3 times in disguise, but each time turned down her offer to meditate with him, and so she said he would not achieve supreme enlightenment in that life. He did not, but he became very advanced, and when he spoke, flowers came down from the sky. Also in Hua Yen Buddhism, or... mythology, it is understood that Amida Buddha comes down personally and escorts those who attain Buddhahood back to heaven. Now most may not believe it, but some do; and who are you to say they are wrong and should be corrected?

Now that last example, that will seem completely absurd, one of those mythology things which you would never in a hundred years even consider, and let me say I get that. But from my readings of Buddhist Scripture, Buddha is not someone or something which doesn't exist anymore, but Buddha is in a way eternal, for instance Manjushri is not dead or something, but exists, and you or I may have taken an instruction from him in a past life. I don't see how Manjushri's teachings would be false or impossible to attain; actually part of Buddhism is that Buddha-nature is attainable. It is esoteric and sacred, but if we discuss Buddhism it is necessary to go to these things because they deal with reality - what is reality as in "what is the source of reality?" etc. I know it's not regular to discuss esoteric and sacred things of different religions; but if you keep it a secret, what is the use of that either?

[pagebypage]

I meant it to be one to open up discussion, rather than argument.

To both you and Tyler; you may be right. I am going to drop it for now, maybe come back to it later. Thank you for posting.

I honestly wasn't trying to make the Bible suit me. It was my own understanding of that verse, whether it is right or wrong, and I do admit it could be wrong.

Anyway you are correct that Buddhists consider the mind to be the sixth sense. But there is more to Buddhism than it appears you know about. Not all Buddhists are the same (shouldn't this go without saying?). For instance in Pure Land Buddhism the central figure is Amitabha, Buddha of Infinite Light.

Speaking of reading into scripture what you wish to be, I would be wary of that myself if I were you. For instance you may have some idea that Buddhists don't believe in God, and this may be true for as many Buddhists as you will ever meet in your life, but they might be making the same error in propogating something which isn't entirely true. Not about God; but simply about saying "Buddhism is like this," the reasoning for which is "as far as I have understood Buddhism, everyone always discounts accounts of supernatural happenings." Even though the stories of people who attain Buddhahood or almost attain it - for example, one person met Buddha Vajrayogini, female Buddha of Wisdom, 3 times in disguise, but each time turned down her offer to meditate with him, and so she said he would not achieve supreme enlightenment in that life. He did not, but he became very advanced, and when he spoke, flowers came down from the sky. Also in Hua Yen Buddhism, or... mythology, it is understood that Amida Buddha comes down personally and escorts those who attain Buddhahood back to heaven. Now most may not believe it, but some do; and who are you to say they are wrong and should be corrected?

Now that last example, that will seem completely absurd, one of those mythology things which you would never in a hundred years even consider, and let me say I get that. But from my readings of Buddhist Scripture, Buddha is not someone or something which doesn't exist anymore, but Buddha is in a way eternal, for instance Manjushri is not dead or something, but exists, and you or I may have taken an instruction from him in a past life. I don't see how Manjushri's teachings would be false or impossible to attain; actually part of Buddhism is that Buddha-nature is attainable. It is esoteric and sacred, but if we discuss Buddhism it is necessary to go to these things because they deal with reality - what is reality as in "what is the source of reality?" etc. I know it's not regular to discuss esoteric and sacred things of different religions; but if you keep it a secret, what is the use of that either?

I like you, Nikolai. You remind me of myself back in my college days. I was going to let it drop too. But you made it kind of hard. What a fool I've been, meditating for 30 years when I could have just read a few books.:lol: Gotta love your chutzpah, kid!:lol:

[joseph90ie]

You can be what you choose to be, answerable to nobody; unless you choose obedience in order to be accepted in a group of people who promote a particular doctrine, which usually demands a strict rejection of all other beliefs to be found in the world. But initially (and this should not need saying) - initially, since nobody's in charge but yourself, you make the choice and may be as eclectic as you like. But like I say, as soon as you wish to be included as part of a group - to find acceptance - then you'll have to conform, obey, be inconspicuous and intolerant. In that case, Buddhism and Christianity are exclusive of one another. But then, as far as truth is concerned, it's not worthwhile being a part of those groups. They aren't interested in that kind of thing: they're interested in organization and creating a financial, propertied place for themselves in this world, which is fine: that's what they're designed to do, I believe. They serve a practical function. If it's the inherent value of the ideas you're holding that concerns you - if this is the issue you're pre-occupied with, then the sure sign that you're on the right path is loneliness, as in, not being part of a group. As soon as a group materializes, there is compromise; and the one and only area of life where compromise is fatal is when it comes to inflexible truth. Remember, truth is a lonely thing, not a part of groups of any sort. Truth is not a social thing.

[NikolaiI]

I like you, Nikolai. You remind me of myself back in my college days. I was going to let it drop too. But you made it kind of hard. What a fool I've been, meditating for 30 years when I could have just read a few books.:lol: Gotta love your chutzpah, kid!:lol:

Hm, thank you :), and all the same to you as well. One love comes to mind. I also studied different religions - One Love, One Heart is from Rastafarianism. I think in truth we are spirit. Buddhists call it Buddha-nature instead of soul, but I cannot find a difference between Buddha and spirit, spirit being that which is eternal, peaceful, blissful, etc.

Reading books is good; listening to mantras is also very good. May I recommend this Gayatri Mantra? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDjYdpOmV1s&feature=related
If you can practice it and chant it with the video, I would predict you will find healing power in it, if you give it some time and effort.

For reading is one thing. Vipassana (I assume your meditation is vipassana) is good, mantra meditation is also good and sometimes quicker.

[NikolaiI]

You can be what you choose to be, answerable to nobody; unless you choose obedience in order to be accepted in a group of people who promote a particular doctrine, which usually demands a strict rejection of all other beliefs to be found in the world. But initially (and this should not need saying) - initially, since nobody's in charge but yourself, you make the choice and may be as eclectic as you like. But like I say, as soon as you wish to be included as part of a group - to find acceptance - then you'll have to conform, obey, be inconspicuous and intolerant. In that case, Buddhism and Christianity are exclusive of one another. But then, as far as truth is concerned, it's not worthwhile being a part of those groups. They aren't interested in that kind of thing: they're interested in organization and creating a financial, propertied place for themselves in this world, which is fine: that's what they're designed to do, I believe. They serve a practical function. If it's the inherent value of the ideas you're holding that concerns you - if this is the issue you're pre-occupied with, then the sure sign that you're on the right path is loneliness, as in, not being part of a group. As soon as a group materializes, there is compromise; and the one and only area of life where compromise is fatal is when it comes to inflexible truth. Remember, truth is a lonely thing, not a part of groups of any sort. Truth is not a social thing.

The first thing which comes to mind reading this is one thing Pascal said; all things are partly true and partly false. All you have said is partly true and partly false. I agree you can start out and you are not answerable to anybody. I warn against having too fixed ideas about what is possible in terms of relationship with persons, or community, in religious settings. As either The Atheist or Redzeppelin said, I am not sure which, sometimes we have misconceptions about religous people because a minority held view is the loudest and most outspoken. Not sure if that makes sense or helps, but, it is good to keep in mind that nothing is static, all is in change; and so it's wrong to think that people are always one way, because they never are; they are always in change, in growth. Not always for the better, sometimes they are up or down. My point is that joining the community - even meeting people in the group is joining it briefly - is only going to have problems if they are inflexible; but I am suggesting they are not necessarily as inflexible as you say. Some may be, but not all are the same. And no one is actually 100% unchanging, unflexible, as the nature of all things is change.

One assertion of Buddhism, and this is also true of all Eastern ontology, is that we are not separate from each other, and from reality. John Donne even said this; "no man is an island." So the lonliness you speak of is merely a part of the whole struggle or path. The lonliness is not the supreme truth - just as pessimism is not the truth. Truth comes more in terms of harmony, in my opinion. The lonliness is part of the problem, or perhaps it is a symptom; it is viewing things incorrectly. I am not condemning it; all is as it is.

And this is an almost abstract idea; it is at the very core of mysticism. But consider, even, the Beatles' lyric;
"The wind is low, the birds will sing
that you are part of everything.." etc.

Now so if this is true; if we can understand intellectually that this is true, then it follows that it is important. Why? Because if we can understand that we are part of everything, then that will show that our entire lives up to that point have been in illusion, specifically, in the illusion that we are not part of everything, that we are separate. So the source of mysticism, and the search for God, truth or the soul, is that being part of everything.

Einstein said this verbatim:

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.


But this is what mysticism is... Ken Wilber wrote some good books about this kind of thing. It is why there are mystics who say "I have seen it, the truth, it is beyond words, and it is completely blissful! And I have become awake, I have seen that up until now I have been playing a role, just like an actor on a stage, and it was all a dream. Being awake, I see that all this has been a dream." How can the mystic know that the rest was a dream? Because it was a dream of separateness, of duality.

This even goes back to Plato if you can read the allegory of the Cave, he describes it there. It's the same thing as Buddhist awakening or enlightenment (realiziation of Buddha-nature) or if you didn't follow any religion; it could be described in words simply as "we are spirit." Such a phrase may be meaningless to an atheist or naturalist, or they may also understand it.

Anyway this is my opinion and view and I am not saying it is necessary for you or anyone else. Just my veiw.

Lastly, I will add just one more thing.. what is beauty and what is truth? We have all probably heard that Truth is Beauty. I believe this is true, but I believe we are all part of Truth, which is, in the words of R.W. Emerson, the universal beauty, the soul. That's what I see in my mind's eye when I read over Einstein's words - spirit.


Interestingly, I just found this quote by Einstein (right under the one I searched for to put here). What can I say but that I agree? :)

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.


And for those of you who might criticize me for going off topic, please see that this was in reply to the above poster, and their points about the communities in Chrstianity and Buddhism. I thought a bit of clarification of what Buddhists teach - specifically or especially, the Buddhist mystic idea that we are not separate from reality, although we do not realize this normally.

[joseph90ie]

I think every man is an island. I agree with you about groups; I spoke in an unrealistic way about them. There are plenty of different people in groups, when you meet them individually. But if you wish to express openly your difference, then you will be forced to leave, be excommunicated or ostracized.

I believe people change all the time; that each man's imagination is like a whirlpool, absorbing everything in view and not knowing where it'll end up. But I think, if you want to know how life works, you can not receive it from the words of another man. Any accurate perceptions about life must be imprinted on the heart (not just the mind), and this can only come from directly experiencing events or arriving at your own thoughts by your own paths. If it is shown to you by another, you can intellectually apprehend it, true, but you cannot know it intimately, which can only be done privately and in isolation, in my experience. And by that stage, the truth as you perceive it, and as another perceives it, will hardly be communicable: both of you will have something of the truth, if either of you has any wisdom, just as both of you are human beings; but neither of you will be able to properly understand one another, because, though like I say you're both humans, you're first of all individuals - islands of men. (This is sounding glib and highfalutin!!)

[joseph90ie]

I think the best that communication can do is bring into reassuring view the other man's island - a poignant case of 'land ahoy'. But you can never step onto this other land. The closer you get to this island, too loud and too vivid does it become and starts to clash with your own island; you are angered, and suddenly the bleak horizon is preferable once again.

I think one of the most exciting things about life is when you first desry a tiny figure on another far off distant island - that's the moment: everything before and after is disappointment of a sort that knocks you on your knee and makes your head heavy.

[NikolaiI]

pagebypage, if you have the time and watch this video, I'd be interested to hear what you think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5sOm-uQH9Y

[pagebypage]

pagebypage, if you have the time and watch this video, I'd be interested to hear what you think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5sOm-uQH9Y

Don't know what to say, Nik. That the Mahayanist do strange things?--that's why I ignore all their prayer wheel stuff, deity talk, Bodhisattva yada, and chanting schtick. That Tibetans are a strange people? That even Buddhist monks allow themselves to get sidetracked or off the path? Or can become zealots or intolerant unto violence? Yeah. Yip, yip, yip, yahoo! Didn't need a video to know that. Saw that kind of nonsense on tv during the Vietnam War.

Look, I'm just a guy in Hooterville who likes to meditate and, considering what little progress I've made over the years, apparently who doesn't meditate all that well. But the whole point of it for me is just that--the praxis. Which translates to not caring whether that makes me a Buddhist or not and absolutely not caring what a bunch of loony toons are doing halfway across the world to each other.

[NikolaiI]

Don't know what to say, Nik. That the Mahayanist do strange things?--that's why I ignore all their prayer wheel stuff, deity talk, Bodhisattva yada, and chanting schtick. That Tibetans are a strange people? That even Buddhist monks allow themselves to get sidetracked or off the path? Or can become zealots or intolerant unto violence? Yeah. Yip, yip, yip, yahoo! Didn't need a video to know that. Saw that kind of nonsense on tv during the Vietnam War.

Look, I'm just a guy in Hooterville who likes to meditate and, considering what little progress I've made over the years, apparently who doesn't meditate all that well. But the whole point of it for me is just that--the praxis. Which translates to not caring whether that makes me a Buddhist or not and absolutely not caring what a bunch of loony toons are doing halfway across the world to each other.

In this particular case, those being persecuted were being persecuted for a particular form of worship, deity worship, because of the ban by the Dalai Lama. There should be religious freedom. :) But that's getting into politics very quickly. I didn't mean about the politics or about the persecution, I meant the issue at hand; I thought it was interesting, relevant to our conversation.

I saw you removed part of your post, you said the rest of it was smoke and mirrors for you. The goal of Buddhism is to free all sentient beings from suffering. This may seem a bit unconneced from the praxis of a personal vipassana meditation, but it's not. A part of Buddhism is dependent arising. Nothing exists indepenently. This means that all things exist, or no things exist. Everything which exists is dependent on every other thing. But actually no "thing" exists, since the nature of all "things" is self-lessness - since all is in change, as well as that all is interrelated.

Now, the freedom from suffering is when attachment is seen to be selfless, and it is when we replace bad thoughts, bad actions and habits, with good ones. Often times we are tense, we have negativity stored in our body. This is kind of like being frozen. Vipassana meditation and Dharma in general is about eliminating the causes of suffering, preventing negativity; as well as protecting and increasing the good within us. The causes of the present create the realities of the future.

If you take away Boddhisattva from Buddhism then you don't have Buddhism anymore. Boddhisattva and Boddhicitta are both essential to Buddhism, just as essential as the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.

Here is the main thing about Buddhism. In Buddhism the key is a search for liberation of suffering. But we could replace this, and it would be good to do so; with the search for truth, the search for understanding. It is absolutely necessary to have understanding before we can have freedom from suffering. This why Buddhism is not a nihilistic path, nor a path to oblivion. In fact a key element is to avoid oblivion in our lives, instead of trying to find oblivion.

I'm sure I wrote plenty so I'll wait for your response. Please keep an open mind, and I hope you won't feel the need to tell me what you believe and don't believe about Buddhism, and what you think is smoke and mirrors or not. I am just interested in a communication, hopefully both of us will learn; there's no reason to tell me what you will not learn... what I mean is, there's no reason to tell me what you don't believe about what I said. Just tell me what you think and feel - about what you do believe. :)

What's your view of our relationship with the universe, with truth, with mystery? Is there mystery, is there no mystery, is there truth, is there love? etc.

[pagebypage]

Ok. I misunderstood why you wanted me to watch the video. I'm an old guy, Nik, you have to clue me in.:lol:

Well I'm obviously not competent to comment on just what the Dalai Lama's intention is. I know very little of how the Tibetan's monks set up their hierarchy. I suppose (pure speculation) that as the supreme head of the order, he believes it is his duty to keep the monks following the 8 fold path and he finds that deity worship is a hindrance to attaining their goal. Why suddenly that is a problem I have no idea, especially if you accept that the Dalai Lama is just the reincarnation of the previous, of the previous, etc.

Now as for the smoke and mirrors stuff.

First, I never meant to imply that I am a self-identifying Buddhist. If I gave that impression I apologize. Yes I studied under a meditation guide years ago in college and, yes, he insisted as part of that instruction that I study the pali scriptures but I could never say I really considered myself a Buddhist. I just had the need to meditate and I wanted to get a decent foundation. So in my heart, maybe I am, maybe not. It really has never been important to me.

Second, the tradition I did study, the Theraveda schools, do not postulate Bodhisattvas. I'm not sure if they consider that delusional or not (its been 30 yrs) but they don't accept it. Deity worship they would consider a waste of time--a hindrance. They recognize that Buddhists do it--better to do that than nothing--but I can't imagine it would be encouraged in the monasteries themselves. So I have to respectfully disagree that those things are essential to Buddhism. You are taking one tradition and extrapolating that to all others as the standard. It would be like taking traditions of the Easter Orthodox Church and proclaiming that unless Baptists do or believe this, they are not Christian.

Third, yes I practice a breath meditation primarily. I also practice an action meditation. This I do primarily at work--a paean to efficiency:), or combine with a classical guitar practice.

The only valuable thing I got from the Pali scripture, other than the general 3 jewels, 8 fold-path, is Buddha's comment to not take his word on it but to see for yourself. That is pretty much what I intended by the term praxis. The theora--the philosophy, the books on doctrine, the books describing what happens in meditation, books of prayers, chants, etc., that you seem to love so well become smoke and mirrors for me in that respect. I'm not interested on what others say, even Buddhas. I want to see it for myself. That is the only way I'll know; that is the only way I'd believe; that is the only way, if true, to be liberated.

As for your comments on self-lessness. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. If you're alluding to anatta you need to spend more time working that one out. If your talking about non-attachment, ok, but that is the most unusual way I've ever seen it described. If your simply stating that things are flux--duh! I may have read the stuff 30 yrs ago but I understood it. It isn't quantum physics.

Converse on the subject. Sure. No problema. Could be fun!

Funny thing about threads. All I intended when I posted was to point out the logical inconsistency of your position. Seems a bit A = not A to me. Your solution was to redefine A and not A by a third criterion until, shazam, they are the same.

[NikolaiI]

I agree with you about one's own experience and thinking for oneself. I just read an essay by John Stuart Mill tonight called "On Genius," in which he first talked about how education wasn't (he lived in the 19th century) teaching how to think anymore, but only teaching how to remember or memorize by rote. He also said no one can teach you, that you have to find the answers for yourself, and I think that's true.

About the smoke and mirrors; the thing about it which is a bit ironic is that in Buddhhism it's kind of backwards. Well, perhaps not backwards, but in Buddhism samsara is considered to be all smoke and mirrors. Not considering about Bodhisattvas or Buddha-nature or anything; the question still remains, what is truth? And as I said before that's fairly important. What are we/ and what is reality?

Buddhism teaches that duality is a false understanding, it's sort of a blocking to our understanding of (our) nature/ reality. We are under the misconception that we are separate from reality, when in fact we are not. Part of Buddhism is realizing non-duality, but it's not in a random way; otherwise the religion would be complete chaos. But the mystical part of it has to do with that, it has to do with understanding reality.

The goal in Buddhism is to become enlightened, or "Awake." When asked what he was, whether he was this, that, or the other, the Buddha replied to all, no. When pressed, he replied, "I am awake."

Here is where smoke and mirrors (samsara) comes in. What is he awake from? Why is it that sages from all places and time say a similar thing, that life is a dream? What is truth, and what is mysticism?

What is the basis for the postulation that there is something to wake up from? It has to do with duality versus non-duality.

In our idea of independence, or separateness (the dream of separateness), we are cut off from what we wish to have: enlightenment, reality. We feel separate. But if we realize that we are part of reality, then this is mystical feeling. It transcends all dualistic thought. Once we get a glimpse that we are part of the waterfall (nirvana), then we realize that the rest was delusion (samsara).


By the way I love your avatar. I have been a huge fan of Calvin and Hobbes since I was a young child. :)

[pagebypage]

Can't say your right or wrong, Nik. I never think of Buddhism so much in terms of duality but, again, I don't think on it that much at all.

I already misspoked when I said all I ever took from Buddhism was the 3 gems and the 8 fold path. It hit me last night out of the blue--3 gems, beam me up! I really meant the 4 noble truths. I'd like to think it is just because I've so internalized those that they are just a part of my worldview and so go without comment but it is more likely just sloppy thinking and forgetfulness.

I'm not sure in the Theravada tradition you can make claim that the awakening is from illusion unless it is the illusion from the Hindu concept of atta (atman). You'll have to give me some time to mull this over otherwise I'll just be talking for the sake of talking.

Calvin & Hobbes were great. The only strip I miss more is Bloom County.

[subterranean]

If you take away Boddhisattva from Buddhism then you don't have Buddhism anymore. Boddhisattva and Boddhicitta are both essential to Buddhism, just as essential as the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.

If I understand it correctly, the concept Saddha or faith is also a significant in Buddhism, as it is seen as the necessary element to begin and persevere on the process of enlightenment, and the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha are considered as the objects of Saddha.

[NikolaiI]

If I understand it correctly, the concept Saddha or faith is also a significant in Buddhism, as it is seen as the necessary element to begin and persevere on the process of enlightenment, and the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha are considered as the objects of Saddha.

It seems you're correct. I wasn't thinking about this, but here's the first paragraph of the wikipedia article on the subject "Faith in Buddhism."

I visited Sravasti Abbey once, and the practice for monks and lay visitors there is to always sit whenever eating or drinking. They try to be very conscious of what kind of energy they're taking into their body, and also receive it as medicine. It also seems similar.


Faith (Pali: saddhā, Sanskrit: Śraddhā) is an important constituent element of the teachings of the Buddha - both in the Theravada tradition and especially in the Mahayana. Some of the first words which the Buddha is alleged to have spoken after deciding to teach Dharma (Truth) to the world were: "Wide opened is the door of the Immortal to all who have ears to hear; let them send forth faith [saddha] to meet it."

[pagebypage]

I haven't forgotten you, Nik. I've just been busy at work.

I spent some time trying to dredge up what I remember about the Theraveda schools. Unfortunately it isn't very much. I'm afraid I pretty much related what little I recall. I went on some Theraveda sites and some of it came back but, honestly, any postings of mine would just be a cut & paste regurgitation of what I read. I know that is SOP on these forums but you deserve better than that. You are looking for an honest conversation with a practicing Buddhist but I'm just not that guy. I just meditate. I didn't buy into the program when I started and after all these years I've never experienced anything that would make me buy into the program now. Heart-in-heart, I'm really still just a lapsed-Catholic. So I'm going to have to bow out of this one--hopefully gracefully--and leave this topic and thread variation to someone who can provide you what you seek. It isn't me.

[Sylent1]

I don't understand why the need to BE both. Is it not enough to be one and respect the symmetry of the other? Or to see wisdom where ever one encounters it? I think souls get reused but I am Christian. I do not pretend to have answers but I have opinions.

[blazeofglory]

I think both can be one and the same. At the beginning of the journey we have of course differences in them but when we reach a state wherein religious differences do not matter at all. No matter what religions you belong to or what faiths you hold or whether you go to a temple or church or monastery or synagogue or mosque it is the same feeling. All we want is enlightenment in life and nothing else and to that end no religion will be an impediment to you. We can rise over and above petty differences and backgrounds and then why cannot we be either of them.

[mal4mac]

Of course you can be a Buddhist and a Christian. There are even sects out there that will let you do that. You can be a follower of Stephen Batchelor's ('Buddhism without Beliefs') and the 'Sea of Faith" school of Christianity. Then every ideology becmes a metaphor. 'Heaven' and 'reincarnation' are metaphors that you can use at different times. It doesn't matter that they are incompatible 'in reality'. Physicists can view electrons as waves or particles, so why not mix the incompatible beliefs of Buddhism and Christianity into your own 'quantum' belief system? But I don't want to do that. I don't like either belief system much, preferring Kafka's notion of indestructibility one moment, and Dawkins' 'it's all biology' the next, and then Sextus Empiricus, and then watching Laurel & Hardy or the Queen of the Night...

[Paulclem]

H H The Dalai Lama advises people to stick with their own religious tradition unless they have a strong inclination towards Buddhism. He was addressing a Western audience which were probably from a Chrstian background. That is not to say that the tools in Buddhism - such as meditation - can't be used by anyone. Other practitioners from other religions are welcome to use the methods as they see fit.

For someone to be a Buddhist is to simply declare themselves a Buddhist by reciting three times:

I go for refuge to the Buddha
I go for refuge to the Dharma
I go for refuge to the Sangha

A lot has been written on what it means to do this, but it is to follow the Buddha's teaching and not to mix and match. You seek refuge from the cycle of suffering birth ageing sickness and death by escaping from Samsara through Enlightenment. You do this through a qualified Buddhist teacher who gives you the tools and advice to achieve this aim.

Having said that, no-one is going to pursue you if you decide to stop being a Buddhist. It is your choice, and I think it is this openness that enables this kind of question to be asked. What about the other religions? Would someone seriously ask could you be both of any of the other major religions?

Bearing the personal choice in mind, and the aim of Buddhism, I don't think you can be a Christian and a Buddhist. The aims are completely irreconcileable.

The posters who are essentially saying that different religions are the same are looking from the "result" end. It is of little use to a person who wants a path to nurture their spiritual health - be that Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism or whatever.

[NikolaiI]

Of course you can be a Buddhist and a Christian. There are even sects out there that will let you do that. You can be a follower of Stephen Batchelor's ('Buddhism without Beliefs') and the 'Sea of Faith" school of Christianity. Then every ideology becmes a metaphor. 'Heaven' and 'reincarnation' are metaphors that you can use at different times. It doesn't matter that they are incompatible 'in reality'. Physicists can view electrons as waves or particles, so why not mix the incompatible beliefs of Buddhism and Christianity into your own 'quantum' belief system? But I don't want to do that. I don't like either belief system much, preferring Kafka's notion of indestructibility one moment, and Dawkins' 'it's all biology' the next, and then Sextus Empiricus, and then watching Laurel & Hardy or the Queen of the Night...

Wow, that waves and particles part is an amazing analogy. Thank you. :)

[BienvenuJDC]

Christ's teachings exclude allegiances to any other kind of religion. If one tries to be anything else besides being a Christian, then their Christianity isn't a faithful Christianity. Ephesians chapter 4, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism..."

[IceM]

The question, to me, would only be asked out of fear of betraying a denomination.

If you think about it, Buddhism and Christianity are very similar. Buddhism preaches good moral conduct, wisdom, and self-inflection through meditation as ways to escape the suffering in our lives. Christianity preaches tolerance, forgiveness, and discipline both to resist sin and tolerate it in others. The only difference then becomes that Christians believe in a Creator.

[Paulclem]

The question, to me, would only be asked out of fear of betraying a denomination.

If you think about it, Buddhism and Christianity are very similar. Buddhism preaches good moral conduct, wisdom, and self-inflection through meditation as ways to escape the suffering in our lives. Christianity preaches tolerance, forgiveness, and discipline both to resist sin and tolerate it in others. The only difference then becomes that Christians believe in a Creator.

There are significant differences in belief, aim and the spiritual path.

Reincarnation through countless lives over dfferent eons Christian - One life

The law of Karma - Judgement

No creator God - A Personal Creator God

The Wheel of life describing existence in different realms - Heaven Hell Universe

The existence Buddhas from different ages - Son of God /God

A spiritual path that can lead to an escape from the Wheel of Life - God's Grace/ Jesus Saviour Eternal life

The assertion that the world we experience has no inherent existence - God's truth

These are just off the top of my head. I do take your point that there are common aims and areas where there a be mutual help. I have the greatest respect for the Christian commitment to charity.

Also, if I have misrepresented the Christian side of my argument above, then I apologise for my ignorence and will be stood corrcted.

[IceM]

There are significant differences in belief, aim and the spiritual path.

Reincarnation through countless lives over dfferent eons Christian - One life

The law of Karma - Judgement

No creator God - A Personal Creator God

The Wheel of life describing existence in different realms - Heaven Hell Universe

The existence Buddhas from different ages - Son of God /God

A spiritual path that can lead to an escape from the Wheel of Life - God's Grace/ Jesus Saviour Eternal life

The assertion that the world we experience has no inherent existence - God's truth

These are just off the top of my head. I do take your point that there are common aims and areas where there a be mutual help. I have the greatest respect for the Christian commitment to charity.

Also, if I have misrepresented the Christian side of my argument above, then I apologise for my ignorence and will be stood corrcted.

What I was meaning to say in my original post is that a Christian can apply the fundamental virtues discussed in the Bible to attain Buddhist aims. Of course the difference in whom to worship plays a major difference. But, taking fundamental values from Christianity, you can attain some of the fundamental aims of Buddhism. That was my purpose.

[Paulclem]

What I was meaning to say in my original post is that a Christian can apply the fundamental virtues discussed in the Bible to attain Buddhist aims. Of course the difference in whom to worship plays a major difference. But, taking fundamental values from Christianity, you can attain some of the fundamental aims of Buddhism. That was my purpose.

Firstly there is no worship of the Buddha. What you see at Buddhist shrines and altars is respect being paid to the teacher. It is due to the Asian background which revere the teacher.

Secondly, the aim of Buddhism is not to get to heaven. In fact there are heavens in Buddhist cosmology, but these are part of the wheel of life and still result in a suffering realm. Here the Gods are a bit like the Greek Gods. Their lives end after a verylong time. The aim is to escape samsara by becoming a Buddha.

Thirdly, the shorter term aims of a Buddhist are to do with self control so that the person and can become happier and help others to be happier. The way to do this is through teachings, meditation, reflecton and effort.

I hope I have understood your post. My point is that there are common aspects to all the religions, but fundamental differences in aim and practice.

[aquarium444]

OP:

You can be whatever you like, but it mightent not make sense at all, if there are conditions for being accepted into heaven, etc. Some might say that today there are no Christians, because nobody seems to know the truth. There is a lot of different groups, and not much validity since nobody enforces religion in an authoritative way. You can be whatever you want and it is worse than being forced to be something, or is it. What people think is the only thing to fear! They might put a beating on ya.

[Paulclem]

OP:

You can be whatever you like, but it mightent not make sense at all, if there are conditions for being accepted into heaven, etc. Some might say that today there are no Christians, because nobody seems to know the truth. There is a lot of different groups, and not much validity since nobody enforces religion in an authoritative way. You can be whatever you want and it is worse than being forced to be something, or is it. What people think is the only thing to fear! They might put a beating on ya.

Does a religion have to be enforced to be authoritative? If you want a religion that enforces, and is authoritative, you wouldn't have to look far.

As for being a Christian or Buddhist - they ars so different, as to be mutually exclusive due to the aims, methods and goals.

I think one of the strengths of Buddhism and Christianity is that a person can choose to be either. Not both, though that doesn't mean there isn't common ground in charity, compassion etc.

[NikolaiI]

The truth, the reality, is beyond words and terms - even terms like Buddhist and Christian are part of the phenomenal world, samsaric existence, which is a series of nothings. The supreme reality is indvisible and inviolable, and Buddhist and Christian mystics both saw this. On a mundane level you will say Buddhist and Christian are two different terms, and you will deny that one can be both. But if you once glimpse the non-duality of all existence, then you know that such arguments are like trying to make out shadows in the dark.

[Paulclem]

The truth, the reality, is beyond words and terms - even terms like Buddhist and Christian are part of the phenomenal world, samsaric existence, which is a series of nothings. The supreme reality is indvisible and inviolable, and Buddhist and Christian mystics both saw this. On a mundane level you will say Buddhist and Christian are two different terms, and you will deny that one can be both. But if you once glimpse the non-duality of all existence, then you know that such arguments are like trying to make out shadows in the dark.

What you are saying is that it is no use trying to discuss this using words and terms. There is no argument, just accept what I say. But the argument has not been set by ordinary people but by the leaders of each religion. Why haven't the founders, leaders, mystics, visionaries and prophets of both religions come to the same recogniseable conclusion and revealed it?

From the Buddhist perspective, this also can't be accepted. Everything can and should be questioned, discussed and reflected upon. Your conclusions may be very different to someone else's.

I'm not trying to say that religions are football teams, one better than another. Peraps there may be the appropriateness of a religion for a person given their culture, experience etc.

Yes I would agree that on my mundane level I need to distinguish between the aims, methods and objectives of the two religions. On a mundane level, how can a theistic and non-theistic religion be reconciled together, not to mention the fundamentals of the belief systems of each? Is the energy spent in attempting the reconciling worth it? No I would say, when the wealth of experience and guidance in both can help someone on their spiritual journey. Where does declaring that both are the same get one? Nowhere in both I would suggest.

The other thing is that how is a mundane practitioner like myself supposed to approach an experience that cannot be put into words? Only by a graduated path with guidance from a teacher - (I can't comment about christianity on this). That's why the Buddha's don't teach us directly. Ordinary people can't perceive them.

the phenomenal world, samsaric existence, which is a series of nothings

On a more technical point, this assertion is false. Samsara is not nothing, but it has no inherent existence from it's own side, meaning it is a dependant reality, not a nothingness.

[NikolaiI]

What you are saying is that it is no use trying to discuss this using words and terms. There is no argument, just accept what I say. But the argument has not been set by ordinary people but by the leaders of each religion. Why haven't the founders, leaders, mystics, visionaries and prophets of both religions come to the same recogniseable conclusion and revealed it?

From the Buddhist perspective, this also can't be accepted. Everything can and should be questioned, discussed and reflected upon. Your conclusions may be very different to someone else's.

I'm not trying to say that religions are football teams, one better than another. Peraps there may be the appropriateness of a religion for a person given their culture, experience etc.

Yes I would agree that on my mundane level I need to distinguish between the aims, methods and objectives of the two religions. On a mundane level, how can a theistic and non-theistic religion be reconciled together, not to mention the fundamentals of the belief systems of each? Is the energy spent in attempting the reconciling worth it? No I would say, when the wealth of experience and guidance in both can help someone on their spiritual journey. Where does declaring that both are the same get one? Nowhere in both I would suggest.

The other thing is that how is a mundane practitioner like myself supposed to approach an experience that cannot be put into words? Only by a graduated path with guidance from a teacher - (I can't comment about christianity on this). That's why the Buddha's don't teach us directly. Ordinary people can't perceive them.

I am sorry that you thought I am such a person as would want to control others and accept no argument.


the phenomenal world, samsaric existence, which is a series of nothings

On a more technical point, this assertion is false. Samsara is not nothing, but it has no inherent existence from it's own side, meaning it is a dependant reality, not a nothingness.

It has no more existence than the dreams you dreamt last night.





Yes I would agree that on my mundane level I need to distinguish between the aims, methods and objectives of the two religions. On a mundane level, how can a theistic and non-theistic religion be reconciled together, not to mention the fundamentals of the belief systems of each? Is the energy spent in attempting the reconciling worth it? No I would say, when the wealth of experience and guidance in both can help someone on their spiritual journey. Where does declaring that both are the same get one? Nowhere in both I would suggest.

It does not matter whether I have spent time trying to reconcile them or you have spent time trying to keep them separate. Perhaps neither was helpful. What is helpful is directing our thoughts, words and actions toward truth, by our practice. Spiritual masters of all religions, genuine ones, are alike in quality. They have similar qualities of faith, compassion, joy, love; they show relentless patience and they never give up hope. They are always working to cultivate goodness and love, and to generate peace and good merits. These are not specific to any religion but universal to all, and they extend also to any philosopher worth his salt.



I met a monk, Geshe Dorje, who's an assistant to the Dalai Lama. And in our conversation he said, "if I ever find something inconceivable, then I will give up my robes and no longer be a Buddhist." But then later I found a Buddhist text actually called "Entry into the Inconceivable."



Don't think that a Sufi or a Christian or Jew or Hindu cannot reach the highest enlightenment - that is, peace, bliss, knowledge. Emerson said... "There are thoughts which find us young and keep us young."

Truth is one, we merely call it by different names. If you see Truth, then you won't take the divisions so seriously. And you know the lovers of God - Jesus, Rumi, etc... I bet they would get on well with the more famous Buddhist masters.

[Paulclem]

I am sorry that you thought I am such a person as would want to control others and accept no argument.



It has no more existence than the dreams you dreamt last night.

No, I didn't mean that Nikolai. My point is that how can truth be discussed and approached when it is rareified out of experience. The end point is the aim, but I think ordinary beings like myself need the steps towards it.

You've got me thinking on this thread, and I hope it doeasn't come across brusquely. If it does, then it's my gears cranking. :)

I need to think about the dream thing.

[NikolaiI]

No, I didn't mean that Nikolai. My point is that how can truth be discussed and approached when it is rareified out of experience. The end point is the aim, but I think ordinary beings like myself need the steps towards it.

You've got me thinking on this thread, and I hope it doeasn't come across brusquely. If it does, then it's my gears cranking. :)

I need to think about the dream thing.

No it's no problem, likewise I am apprehensive that I may come off that way to you. You are the first person I have met who cares very much about Buddhism and I am very glad we can discuss on here. I just hope I don't discourage you any by being too argumentative.

I don't think it's a waste of time...

Actually one point I wanted to make earlier - my view of enlightenment is sort of understanding a higher consciousness (divine, if you will)... the transcendent harmony of all that exists... as Swami Vivekananda said, "

As soon as you know the voice and understand what it is, the whole scene changes. The same world which was the ghastly battlefield of maya is now changed into something good and beautiful."

That is really my ideal.

Now, I worship freely with Sufis and Christians and Hindus as well as practice with Buddhists. I am glad to discuss my reasons for this, and I don't mind defending myself. What I mean is that even though we may argue; I know that your and my ideal are not different - it is simply truth. And if I may assume, then I am guessing your idea of truth is similar - peace, bliss, knowledge ...

Actually I was an atheist when I was younger, and yet Buddhism finally broke the hold, and made me realize that there was more to reality than atheism would allow... at that point I realized that there was a reality or a source of reality which was more than just our senses. It's a philosophical type of thing. The main question for life is "What is reality?" Atheists usually do not answer this very well because they have the common difficulty, as you know, or necessity, of doing it all themselves - reinventing the wheel, as it were.

Well, now I understand the value of traditional knowledge passed on through lineages. But I also now know the value of other mystics... I cannot in a million years discount Rumi, who understood the ideal of love as deeply as anyone perhaps... nor of Sri Aurobindo, etc., - to me they are on an equal plane as Jetsun Milarepa...

[Paulclem]

On the contrary, it has been good for me to think about the issues here. I attend a class weekly, and we will be developing into a study group in a few months, but with work pressure - it's difficult to find the time to practice.

I'm glad you've found practices that you like and are happy with.In your previous postings I thought I read a few Hindu references. It's an interesting mix, and if it works for you then that's great. I feel as though I've been dogmatic on this thread, but I felt that I could contribute an orthodox buddhist view. At the end of the day, individual freedom to choose is important. You forge your own way.

I was brought up virtually an atheist with no guidance from my parents, which turned out to be the best for me. It made me go looking.

I always felt that science did not hold it all as a kid, and reflecting back I found Buddhist ideas all over the place before I'd heard about the religion. When I was 9 I read about reincarnation and it just seemed to click. I was attracted to the idea, and it made sense. That's the thing about reincarnation - it adds some kind of background sense to our preferences and chosen paths. I think you made a similar point in one of your posts.

[aquarium444]

Does a religion have to be enforced to be authoritative? If you want a religion that enforces, and is authoritative, you wouldn't have to look far.

As for being a Christian or Buddhist - they ars so different, as to be mutually exclusive due to the aims, methods and goals.

I think one of the strengths of Buddhism and Christianity is that a person can choose to be either. Not both, though that doesn't mean there isn't common ground in charity, compassion etc.

When the Catholic Church aligned with the aristocracy, it had authority to administer and was able to enforce the religion. There is nothing like that happening today, although it might start up again. It might be happening, but not openly. There isn't much power in those positions, but there used to be. Without that mix, it doesn't matter what religion you study. You can chose any one. The Gods are silent. It is a lot of work for nothing.

I myself do read or listen to the Bible, and spend some time with it, but it is fairly hard to get excited about it. Back when the Church had authority, it was a big deal. You could get ahead by being up on this God and the war for the holy grail or whatever.

[Paulclem]

It has no more existence than the dreams you dreamt last night.

I've been thinking about the dream analogy for Samsara.

Yes you are correct to say this, but not because both are a nothingness.

Both are a dependent reality. A dream is dependent upon the mind of the dreamer. Also, whilst in the dream state, they experience the dream as real. If there is suffering, they experience suffering. The dream will disappear once the dreamer wakes, and this is why it is used as an analogy for Samsara.

In a similar way Samsara is not a nothingness, but is also a dependant reality. It also dpends upon minds and Karma. Of course it is not easy to wake up from Samsara.

The assertion that Samsara is a nothingness could logically lead someone to conclude that it doesn't matter what you do if it is nothing. This is a misconception as Samsara is where karma is created. It is a reality where suffering is experienced. Therefore it is an existing reality, but one that does not exist without depending upon the minds of beings. Realising Enlightenment is analogous to waking up from a dream.


I am sorry that you thought I am such a person as would want to control others and accept no argument.



It has no more existence than the dreams you dreamt last night.






It does not matter whether I have spent time trying to reconcile them or you have spent time trying to keep them separate. Perhaps neither was helpful. What is helpful is directing our thoughts, words and actions toward truth, by our practice. Spiritual masters of all religions, genuine ones, are alike in quality. They have similar qualities of faith, compassion, joy, love; they show relentless patience and they never give up hope. They are always working to cultivate goodness and love, and to generate peace and good merits. These are not specific to any religion but universal to all, and they extend also to any philosopher worth his salt.



I met a monk, Geshe Dorje, who's an assistant to the Dalai Lama. And in our conversation he said, "if I ever find something inconceivable, then I will give up my robes and no longer be a Buddhist." But then later I found a Buddhist text actually called "Entry into the Inconceivable."



Don't think that a Sufi or a Christian or Jew or Hindu cannot reach the highest enlightenment - that is, peace, bliss, knowledge. Emerson said... "There are thoughts which find us young and keep us young."

Truth is one, we merely call it by different names. If you see Truth, then you won't take the divisions so seriously. And you know the lovers of God - Jesus, Rumi, etc... I bet they would get on well with the more famous Buddhist masters.

I agree that Spiritual Masters appear to have similar qualities, but they wouldn't say you could achieve what they have by a mix and match approach. The highest examples in a religion demonstrate an adherence to that religion's practice, and so belie the argument that you can be this and that.

I'm not sue what your point about Geshe Dorje is. A sentence uttered by him and a book title do not mean that he would find the book inconceivable.

As for religious leaders getting on, I'm sure they would, but you can't draw a conclusion about their attainments from this.

[NikolaiI]

When you wake up from a dream - sometimes you know you are dreaming, but if you dream and you think it's real - then you say, whether it was a good or bad dream, "Oh, that wasn't real." Keep thinking about it. If you wake up from the dream of Maya (or samsara) you will then realize, "Oh, it wasn't real." That state of self-realization, which many saints for example Hindus and Sufis and Taoists, etc. - whoever - but universally they have said the same thing, which is they reached a place where they realized they were never bound... it does not matter whether Christian or Buddhist or any other - you can practice with people from any place in the world and find happiness, love, joy, spiritual growth, insight - and that deep connection, that deep peace and love - that is what is real - not your bickerings over the divisions and boundaries of religions. Those are just illusions upon illusion.

And it is true that mystics - again, universally - have said the same thing: no matter what, no matter what, there is never any reason to worry... there is a truth of infinite joyousness, serenity, bliss, peace, love... which merely begs to be sung... and it states that everything is nothing... but those who have ever glimpsed this... they are just people... normal people. Perhaps slightly healthier or sharper than others. But they know that all life is a balance. Anyway, those who glimpsed the truth of non-duality, they do not act as though nothing matters...

It is one of those paradoxes, Paul, which you can't understand just by linear (or Western logic) thinking. It is true that nothing matters on one hand - but on the other hand, everything matters greatly. But there are infinite possible perspectives - none of them is absolutely true, yet all have their validity.

What's necessary to find enlightenment is first an aspiration... faith... and that faith itself completely transforms us, and it is very near to enlightenment. And it is not particular to Buddhism, nor to Christianity ---- any more than the air we breathe is. Why would the infinite spirit be for one and not for another? You simply say it doesn't work to mix and match but you are not having an open mind. If you were as rigid from the beginning, you would never have gotten to Buddhism in the first place. So don't think that only one view in Buddhism is correct, nor think that only Buddhism is worthwhile. Don't have any fixed assumptions!

Sorry to go back and forth -- but back to the issue of what is nothingness, or emptiness, and what is form - the truth is, karma is illusion also. Karma doesn't exist. One one level it does but on another level it doesn't.

Don't necessarily think so much that you are an ordinary person, either. You see, actually it is wrong to think you're an ordinary, limited, person. That is one view - but in reality you are boundless, you are connected to the very source of existence. You are one with the universe. Society is in something like a mass delusion -- everyone is reinforcing the illusion that we are separate from the universe. Now don't take this as a criticism, I am not saying they are bad or weak or unhealthy or anything. There are people who are far better than I am who are still under that illusion. But even the very best of our society do not know where they truly stand, they do not know their source.

What I'm saying is that in truth, we are all, every one of us, one with the universe. But in illusion we think we are not. We think we're separate. Actually there is only One Existence. God exists, an infinite Being, and yet has divided into innumerable forms. But all duality is an illusion - being bound, that is an illusion. Form, that is emptiness.

But you don't believe in God. I know.

Well, let me tell you this. It may seem that we are very far separate from Truth, let us say. And it is true, seemingly. But actually we are separated by nothing. Nothing separates us from Truth - and further, lastly, we were never separate, and we were never bound. So to say that everything is nothing, and nothing is everything, or in other words, that form is emptiness and emptiness is form; that means, that in relation to the Truth - which we are - nothing else exists. Nothing. There is nothing in relation to Truth, which is infinite joy, peace, love, etc.... - it is that which says, "There is nothing separate between me and everything."

And if you disagree, I cannot convince you nor do I really care. May you have peace and happiness, and may you come to know your source. :) Peace.

If what I have said seems unfamiliar or incomprehensible to you, I apologize. Do not think I am a person of divided loyalty; I am telling you what I see to be true...

Strength is the greatest virtue... we must give undivided and unalloyed effort to become strong, healthy...

but don't limit yourself, man. That's all I can say. Don't cut yourself off from Rumi, Sri Aurobindo... others...whoever else you find.

[NikolaiI]

Yes it is true that what we say matters... on this plane. On this plane most of us are bound by thoughts and forms and it takes a long while before we see the boundless and formless Truth. And so there are teachings which guide us, to elevate us... and I am not saying that it is okay to commit wrongs, aparadhas, and I am not saying that there's no such thing as anarthas (bad habits). But I am saying that the truth is that everything is light... every form is a form of light. True Buddhists don't say it in the same way, although Lama Surya Das said the same thing, that the secret is that even these shadows are actually light...

So I admit - when people are lazy, when they curse - when they say things out of ignorance - of course all of this keeps them in bondage, keeps them in illusion, and keeps them from truth. But, the thing is, all bondage is illusion, all form is illusion, karma is nothingness - your source is your true self - forget that it does not go in accord with something you thought was true. Your source is your true self. How can you be separate from your source? Your source is you. And your source is never bound by anything...

People who say that Buddhists and Christians are different do not understand, they have never attained God. God is the source of everything... anyone can realize God. Religion is not necessary - nor is the lack of religion necessary. Religion can work if it's done sincerely. Then someone can realize God through religion. But someone can also realize God without religion. Both are true and they are not contradictory.

And before you go off saying that Buddhists don't believe in God - forget the word God and just replace it with, "The absolute ground of reality."

[Paulclem]

I'm familiar with the term Ground of Being as a description of God, rather than the personal God for whom humans are his image. I think your use of the term God may be neither Christian nor Buddhist, but a kind of amalgam of the two. I don't think this is useful.

The point of Buddhism is to provide the tools to attain Elightenment. It posits an explanation as to what Enlightenment is, and it sets out the qualities needed to be developed in order to progress to that point in the future. The most important aspect is to encourage a focus upon useful concepts, and test them out through reflection and meditation.

I wouldn't presume to tell you what is a good practice for your own path or comment on your chosen way, but I have met people who have adopted a catch all type philosophy that encompassed elements of a lot of religions. In there were new age ideas - usually in the 90's - and they then tried to make sense of it all and resolve it into their path. I don't have the wisdom or knowledge to do that, and suspect that is the case for most ordinary people.

It may be true that we are seperated by nothing from the truth. What does that mesn to me though? Not much. It doesn't help me. What Buddhism says to me is that Enlightenment is a moment away, but I will not get to that moment without a systematic practice. I believe this because why would my teachers lie to me? The whole reason that the teachings were formulated by the Buddha was because sentient beings need teaching and guidance to achieve it.

For the reasons I have put above, neither Emptiness nor Samsara is nothingness. I know you are quoting from The Heart Sutra but you are under a misconception about these. Form is Empty - refers to a lack of inherent existence. It depends upon causes and conditions. It has no existence from it's own side, meaning that it cannot exist independant of causes.

I don't know what Christians make of Enlightenment. If I were a Christian I would be tempted to challenge this as relevant to a Christian's practice. As a Buddhist, I have Teachers descriptions of what Enlightenment is, and it bears little relation to the Christian relation to God.

I can understand the impulse that wants to unite people and faiths by drawing together common threads in each and a saying that the goal is the same. I don't feel the need to do this. I am very happy for a Christian to practice their faith, and to agree to disagree. There lies true tolerance. I fundamentally disagree with what Christians base their faith on, but that is no barrier to me appreciating the good work done by Christian organisations. I expct the same kind of tolerance back too, and I get it.:)

[NikolaiI]

I will state my main point which you may have missed because I didn't really form my post with it as the central idea: if you always had such a certain view of how things are, you would never have taken up Buddhism in the first place.

And Paul, my friend, it is not me but you who have a misconception of what is emptiness and what is form. You should only speak from experience. I am speaking from experience, and I saw Buddha, felt the supreme truth as my own being. What I am telling you is true about Buddhism - when you attain enlightenment, you realize that you are also a Buddha, and that you also can turn the wheel of Dharma. What I know is that the source of you, of anyone, is their true self - their true self is pure love. This is true of me, you, and anyone who reads this. I don't care if my saying this, that I saw God, Buddha, the supreme truth, the infinite, the source - I don't care if that means someone will not like me. I know it's true. I know that the essence of everything is pure love - infinite peace, bliss, and knowledge. And it is not separate from Buddhist's view of truth - if they see correctly. There is only one reality. And you can realize that reality, all you have to do is be fearless. You don't have to follow any rites. You can chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo just as well as you can chant Allah, or Rama, or Ana B'Koach.

[boomin0024]

I don't believe so....

From my limited experience Buddhism is about finding meaning inside yourself, and making your meaning to life. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.....)

However, Christianity asserts that there is no meaning outside of God... thus no meaning in "finding meaning in yourself", no meaning in "meditation"... The list goes on and on.


Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. -John 14:6

[Paulclem]

I will state my main point which you may have missed because I didn't really form my post with it as the central idea: if you always had such a certain view of how things are, you would never have taken up Buddhism in the first place.

And Paul, my friend, it is not me but you who have a misconception of what is emptiness and what is form. You should only speak from experience. I am speaking from experience, and I saw Buddha, felt the supreme truth as my own being. What I am telling you is true about Buddhism - when you attain enlightenment, you realize that you are also a Buddha, and that you also can turn the wheel of Dharma. What I know is that the source of you, of anyone, is their true self - their true self is pure love. This is true of me, you, and anyone who reads this. I don't care if my saying this, that I saw God, Buddha, the supreme truth, the infinite, the source - I don't care if that means someone will not like me. I know it's true. I know that the essence of everything is pure love - infinite peace, bliss, and knowledge. And it is not separate from Buddhist's view of truth - if they see correctly. There is only one reality. And you can realize that reality, all you have to do is be fearless. You don't have to follow any rites. You can chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo just as well as you can chant Allah, or Rama, or Ana B'Koach.

With all rspect Nikolai, I have to go with my teachers on this.:)

[NikolaiI]

You know when I was in school we played a game, the teachers there showed us, which was illustrative: there is a message, and one person passes it on to another, and that person tells what they heard, and so on, and by the time it goes through even a short number of people, it becomes incredibly garbled.

I would just say try not to limit yourself! Everything in the world has a purpose. Not to mention everything in Buddhism. I will just suggest, if you are going to discard the wisdom of all religions but Buddhism, then at least learn everything you can from Buddhism. Don't discount Amitabha, the Buddha of Infinite Light, or Bhaisajya Guru, the Medicine Buddha, or any Buddha or Bodhisattva. Just think... you know in your life the people you most like, because they have so many good qualities... well Buddhas are even better than that. So don't turn your nose up at them! And good luck, and may you one day know that infinite peace is true, and that infinite light, infinite joy, that is also real.. :)

[Paulclem]

You know when I was in school we played a game, the teachers there showed us, which was illustrative: there is a message, and one person passes it on to another, and that person tells what they heard, and so on, and by the time it goes through even a short number of people, it becomes incredibly garbled.

Paul, there's no one alive today who's as good as Mila. So just follow him. If Buddhism is enough for you then that's fine, but keep an eye out for dogmatic thinking. When rules become so important you are focused mainly on following them, then you have stopped your progress.

Are you suggsting that The Buddha's teachings are garbled?

Milarepa wrote the 100,000 Songs, which are fantastic, but they are not a systematic path. As a Yogi, his way of life is tremedously difficult to follow, particularly in the modern world, and especially if you have commitments.

My main point is that reading this, practising that, adhering to another aspect of a religion is not enough to realise Enlightenment for an ordinary person. I think I've said this before.

We seem to have come to an impasse. I will be following my teacher's guidance, because I am a Buddhist. I would't presume to describe the path you have taken, but your posts indicate a different way to The Buddha's. That's not a problem. :D

[NikolaiI]

Are you suggsting that The Buddha's teachings are garbled?

Milarepa wrote the 100,000 Songs, which are fantastic, but they are not a systematic path. As a Yogi, his way of life is tremedously difficult to follow, particularly in the modern world, and especially if you have commitments.

My main point is that reading this, practising that, adhering to another aspect of a religion is not enough to realise Enlightenment for an ordinary person. I think I've said this before.

We seem to have come to an impasse. I will be following my teacher's guidance, because I am a Buddhist. I would't presume to describe the path you have taken, but your posts indicate a different way to The Buddha's. That's not a problem. :D

Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha.

Paul my way is not different from Buddha's way. I am Buddha - you are too. But when I tell you that reality is infinite light you think I am telling you to go back to sleep. I'm not - don't! Wake up! :)

Cheerio.

All you need is fearlessness.. all weakness and ignorance comes from fear. But if you attain fearlessness, through renunciation, you have no weakness...

[Paulclem]

The Buddha's way is quite specific.:)

The other religions are too, and have not merged over 2 millennia. That's why there are few Buddho - Christans, or Christiano-Hindus. It is not useful. Someone who tries to be so, is not a Buddhist, and is not a Christian. They are something else.:)

[NikolaiI]

The Buddha's way is quite specific.:)

The other religions are too, and have not merged over 2 millennia. That's why there are few Buddho - Christans, or Christiano-Hindus. It is not useful. Someone who tries to be so, is not a Buddhist, and is not a Christian. They are something else.:)

No one is a Buddhist or Christian.



...

All is one. The forms of this world are but forms of light. --- at first there's no conception of this... first it must be understood that they are shadow, that this world is Maya, that it is nothing. But then you realize that it is light itself. As Lama Surya Das said, the shadows themselves are light.

I spoke the Great Mantra, Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha because it is reflective of the truth - which is beyond everything. There's no real way to say it better than that, that it's beyond everything. In the highest consciousness, there is no coming or going. In the traceless enlightenment, there is no limited existence, all existence is boundless and infinite. We cannot get there by our senses only, but knowledge of that reality is within us all, latent, involved (as opposed to evolved).

There is only one way really, and all ways relfect this one way in some degree. All of reality is a matrix of information, and we exist and know things within this matrix. The matrix exists in a sort of energy field which may be called Divine Energy. At this point I know I lose you, but know - there is only one reality; the only question is the most perfect way of describing it. There is a completely hamony to the whole picture; a harmony of being, of existence. All has its place in this harmony; both peace and stagnation, both growth and decline, both joy and suffering, both illusion and truth.

Currently we are under the illusion of separateness. This is but one aspect of the coordination, of the harmony. With all the force of our life, we will one day experience pure love - boundless light, joy. This is the truth which is the source of existence. It begs to be known, sung, shared. It is the pure existence which is the original existence. It is always everywhere, and it cannot be destroyed. It is within everyone (and everything) and it can be accessed and used in a positive, healing, and enlightening way. Enlightenment is to know that all is this existence, and to encourage its evoltion in all beings and forms. It is to know oneself as one with this pure existence.

The spiritual path is therefore the cultivation of this essence and power of healing and transformation. It is the journey from ignorance to light, from illusion to truth. In the beginning of the journey, we feel helpless and forced by external events, which we come to consider our fate by the myth of karma. In an intermediate stage we realize the existence of another dimension, in which we exist. We are no longer characters in someone else's story, but we are the author of the story; we created the whole story and we are the author. We are the source of our own existence, the God of our own universe.

This is but one step along the path, however. And the whole path is too extensive for any one person. Yet there are certain steps along it which one may experience, and having done so knowledge is gained that they are universal and necessary for all who want to be free of all anarthas, all aparadhas.

And as to your main concern, when you attempt to preserve what you think is the purity of the distinction, you are really only straining your eyes to see forms in the dark. In truth, all existences are one, indivisible, inviolable, pure, divine existence. That existence is beyond everything, again - it is beyond all knowledge, perception, it is also beyond time.

I'm not trying to change you, remain a Buddhist it's fine. But you shouldn't restrict yourself even within that limited framework! Chant Namo Amituofo, Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, The Medicine Buddha Mantra, and any other mantra which calls you.

The existence you are trying to perceive is what I have described. I am speaking the Dharma and describing the source of reality in a true way; for your benefit and for all. I am nothing but I am a speck at the feet of Mila, of Rumi; great teachers of the source of existence, which is in essence pure love and joy. My central teaching is that you should pursue enlightenment through awareness, embodying the traits of fearlessness and tolerance or patience.

[Paulclem]

we feel helpless and forced by external events, which we come to consider our fate by the myth of karma.

This is a misconception.

From you posts I don't accept many of your references and attitudes to Buddhism.

You know when I was in school we played a game, the teachers there showed us, which was illustrative: there is a message, and one person passes it on to another, and that person tells what they heard, and so on, and by the time it goes through even a short number of people, it becomes incredibly garbled.

I think this denotes your attitude. It's not a problem for me, but I do accept the teachings whereas you clearly do not. That's ok.

Anyway, we're off the point, unless what you have posted represents your idea of what a Christian - Buddhist would be like.

I think it is neither. It won't be recognised by either Buddhists or Christians. Where is God, judgement, heaven and hell? Your idea of Karma is a misconception, and where is the discernible path of teachings that lead to Enlightment. If this has meaning for you, then fine, but it will not appeal to a Christian or a Buddhist.

[NikolaiI]

Paul - Buddha = God = pure love = infinite light, infinite joy, infinite peace = one reality.

There is only one reality - there is one source of the universe, of existence.

I am surprised that you are being dogmatic. You should really reassess that and try to come to a state of openness, and not be rigid, dogmatic, (keyword: attached) in your thought. If you had more openness in what you say, I would ask you: if you saw an infinite joy, bliss, and peace, what would you do? Would you say anything other than that? If you saw infinite Buddha-fields, Buddha-lands, which consist of an alternating pattern between Buddha, and a Lotus - Buddha, whose cells, so to speak, are innumerable Lotuses, and those Lotuses themselves, whose cells are innumerable Buddhas; and you saw it to be the source of everything, the real nature of all forms, not just sentient beings, then would you not speak it? You saw that the infinite truth which you saw was always present, everywhere...

Duality is illusion, Paul, and non-duality is the reality...

Of course... they say... preaching is not important, and it is important to live it... as Lao Tzu said, those who know do not speak... and in truth - there is nothing which needs to be said, or done... the infinite source I am speaking of is always present, everywhere... But what I am telling you will take you to the Buddha, to the Other Shore. Just chant, meditated with sincerity. You will make it.

There's a line from a song I was just listening to, "Now that I know," by Devendra...

"Never buy that freedom just ain't free."

[Paulclem]

I don't buy it Nikolai.:smile5:

If there's no more to be said on the question of whether a Christian can be a Buddhist and vice-versa, then I'm done. It has been interesting.

[NikolaiI]

What don't you buy, when I am telling you you will reach enlightenment? Ought I lie to you and say you are an ordinary being? You are a Buddha, not bound by Maya. Your body is a Buddha body - your cells are millions of gods, innumerable pure lands. Your cells themselves are of the same nature as the source of all existence: Buddha, Lotus, the essence of the Heart Sutra... Ought I lie to you and say you are bound? You are not bound. Ought I lie to you and say that anything exists except for infinite peace, power, bliss and knowledge? The illusion is just the opposite of the reality, but they are reflections of each other. You don't buy it - I get that. But I will not change who I am to suit you. Within the center of every living being - indeed every form - is the source of existence. That source is infinite peace, power, bliss and knowledge. If you develop faith in the Buddha, actually develop it, and develop love for his name, and repeat it with devotion and sincerity, then you will receive all of the healing... then you will be completely healed and be able to heal others... but if you just act sullenly toward people who are telling you about the healing power of Buddha - if you stick to your guns that I am wrong about it all, about the fact that there is an infinite healing power - because you think I am speaking something different from Buddhism... then, well, that is your prerogative. But perhaps you are not really seeing what I am saying clearly. Try to open your mind and just understand; there is an infinite healing power. It can be accessed by repeating the Buddha's name, the Medicine Buddha, in the form of Tayata Om Bekandze Bekandze Maha Bekandze Randze Samungate Svaha; Amitabha Buddha, in the form of Namo Amituofo; Shakyamuni, by repeating the name of the Lotus sutra, Myoho Renge Kyo. If you do this - first if you purify your heart, and then if you do this with sincerity and devotion, then you will attain enlightenment, realization of your Buddha-nature. If you think that what I have just said has any tinge of materialism, or falseness, that is of course your right. But that holds up no water, Paul. I have said nothing false to you.

[Reiki]

[From my own perspective]

We are all expressions of god's love manifested in physical form and extensions of the oneness that is the universe. As such a Christian can be a Buddhist and vice-versa because they are already one. Fighting with one another over whose way of worshipping god is better :argue: or fighting over whose god is better :banghead: is therefore pretty goofy. If you believe in a higher power and choose to worship in some way, picking a tradition of worship to follow is basically a technicality since there is only one god and god loves us all EQUALLY as extensions of itself. If we could learn to just respect, acknowledge and accept one another the world would be a much happier place.

Namaste
Melissa

PS - love the avatar by the way, it is a perfect expression of love and compassion.

[Paulclem]

[From my own perspective]

We are all expressions of god's love manifested in physical form and extensions of the oneness that is the universe. As such a Christian can be a Buddhist and vice-versa because they are already one. Fighting with one another over whose way of worshipping god is better :argue: or fighting over whose god is better :banghead: is therefore pretty goofy. If you believe in a higher power and choose to worship in some way, picking a tradition of worship to follow is basically a technicality since there is only one god and god loves us all EQUALLY as extensions of itself. If we could learn to just respect, acknowledge and accept one another the world would be a much happier place.

Namaste
Melissa

PS - love the avatar by the way, it is a perfect expression of love and compassion.

There are significant differences between Christians and Buddhists -the first being that Buddhists don't believe in a creator God. As such the idea of being expressions of God's love has no meaning for us.

I don't think you'll find any Buddhists fighting over which God is better. I do agree that respect should be paid to any valid religion.
:smile5:

[BienvenuJDC]

I do agree that respect should be paid to any valid religion.
:smile5:

It would be great if we ALL had a better respect for each other...and all of our beliefs?

[Paulclem]

It would be great if we ALL had a better respect for each other...and all of our beliefs?

Yes. My own view is that some of the beliefs and aims of religions are incompatible, but this should not not be a barrier to tolerance. I think this is real tolerance, and more useful than attempts to reconcile the differences that do exist with speculations that we're all following the same God/ path etc.
I can accept that we believe different things, BienvenuJDC, and I have no problem with that. :smile5:

[Scented Letters]

I would have to say, in my opinion, it's not exactly without issue... as both teach different and opposing views in many cases (example; reincarnation vs. heaven/earth paradise.) But, I would also say that it depends on the depth that a person delves into the Buddhist religion whilst still being Christian.

One could say taking some of the Buddhist teachings and incorporating them into your daily life could be very beneficial -- to choose the ones that do not go against your own Christian views. Buddhism, while having many differences, also has similarities -- peaceable, being one. However, by doing so and selecting what you want and what you do not, I think you couldn't call yourself a Buddhist, per se, but a person who enjoys some of the Buddhist mind-set; a "zen" lifestyle, and tries to practice them for self betterment. (Such as, say, moderation, compassion, mindfulness, non-extremism, non-materialism.. what you may.)

[NikolaiI]

[From my own perspective]

We are all expressions of god's love manifested in physical form and extensions of the oneness that is the universe. As such a Christian can be a Buddhist and vice-versa because they are already one. Fighting with one another over whose way of worshipping god is better :argue: or fighting over whose god is better :banghead: is therefore pretty goofy. If you believe in a higher power and choose to worship in some way, picking a tradition of worship to follow is basically a technicality since there is only one god and god loves us all EQUALLY as extensions of itself. If we could learn to just respect, acknowledge and accept one another the world would be a much happier place.

Namaste
Melissa

PS - love the avatar by the way, it is a perfect expression of love and compassion.

I agree completely. And when we can be in that state of mind, then everything is trasnformational.

[Paulclem]

Another theme a friend of mine brought up today on this issue was the attitudes of Christians and Buddhists to the nature of existence.

In Christianity there are lots of references to the eternal -creator, life, love, eternal bliss in heaven etc.

Buddhism is different on this point too The nature of the universe is constant change or impermanence.

I just thought he made an interesting point.:smile5:

[NikolaiI]

Another theme a friend of mine brought up today on this issue was the attitudes of Christians and Buddhists to the nature of existence.

In Christianity there are lots of references to the eternal -creator, life, love, eternal bliss in heaven etc.

Buddhism is different on this point too The nature of the universe is constant change or impermanence.

I just thought he made an interesting point.:smile5:

On one hand it appears different but on another view it is the same. Even opposites have their union. That is my point, that the distinction or division between Buddhist and Christian is yet another snare of duality. And that within enlightenment - wholeness - that duality also becomes a unity.

[NikolaiI]

I should also like to point out that there is no such thing as either Buddhism or Christianity. As you say all is in change. They are not things but occurrences. Arisings. They are just part of the dream. All of our ideas are like that, and there are literally thousands of layers between us and truth. The funny thing is though... and this is kind of a related to instant enligthenment is that... they are really nothing... so it's so many layers of illusion, it all can be vanished in an instant. I bet if you meet a very, very advanced Buddhist master, one who has maybe glimpsed or realized non-duality, he will tell you this!

Enlightenment is realization of non-duality. Buddhist and Christian are yet again forms which are limiting. They are, it is true, the starting point... just as all forms are... they're a beginning. But they're not the existence. And if you follow Buddha Shakyamuni, if you become attracted to the Heart of Wisdom Sutra, then you'll come to the mantra which the whole sutra praises: Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha...

So the ultimate reality.... the One reality, that is beyond, beyond everything. All of that, all of forms, which are emptiness, all of it vanishes... vanishes in an instant.

If you are in that state... you would not even think of returning to labeling something Christian or Buddhist. The reality is beyond, completely beyond those.

[Babbalanja]

I should also like to point out that there is no such thing as either Buddhism or Christianity. As you say all is in change. They are not things but occurrences. Arisings. They are just part of the dream. All of our ideas are like that, and there are literally thousands of layers between us and truth. The funny thing is though... and this is kind of a related to instant enligthenment (sic) is that... they are really nothing... so it's so many layers of illusion, it all can be vanished in an instant. I bet if you meet a very, very advanced Buddhist master, one who has maybe glimpsed or realized non-duality, he will tell you this!This demonstrates the similarity not only between Christianity and Buddhism, but among all religions: the emphasis on affirming things that can't be understood. The literal meaning (if any exists) of this word-salad is beside the point. What Nik is saying is that anyone can believe something rational and logical: it takes great faith to believe things that are irrational.

The defining cant of contemporary Christians is John 3:16, which makes believers in the 21st century affirm that people survive their physical deaths. Whether they believe that this is literally true (that is, true in the same way that the statement "Albany is the capital of New York" is true) is irrelevant. They are saying that their faith is strong enough to make them affirm something irrational.

Buddhists don't believe in a creator God like Christians do. However, Buddhism is still a religion because it obliges believers to make statements about things they can't rationally understand. If enlightenment consists of repeating meaningless mantras like "all is one" and "your cells are millions of gods, innumerable pure lands," then it doesn't represent a sincere approach to knowledge.

Regards,

Istvan

[Paulclem]

This demonstrates the similarity not only between Christianity and Buddhism, but among all religions: the emphasis on affirming things that can't be understood. The literal meaning (if any exists) of this word-salad is beside the point. What Nik is saying is that anyone can believe something rational and logical: it takes great faith to believe things that are irrational.

The defining cant of contemporary Christians is John 3:16, which makes believers in the 21st century affirm that people survive their physical deaths. Whether they believe that this is literally true (that is, true in the same way that the statement "Albany is the capital of New York" is true) is irrelevant. They are saying that their faith is strong enough to make them affirm something irrational.

Buddhists don't believe in a creator God like Christians do. However, Buddhism is still a religion because it obliges believers to make statements about things they can't rationally understand. If enlightenment consists of repeating meaningless mantras like "all is one" and "your cells are millions of gods, innumerable pure lands," then it doesn't represent a sincere approach to knowledge.

Regards,

Istvan

Buddhism is very specific about what constitutes Enlightenment, and it isn't repeating mantas. You may be referring to Pure Land Buddhism, which repeat mantras in order to gain merit and be reborn in Buddha Amitabha's Pure Land. When reborn in that land, then Enlightenment is easier to attain through teachings because of the beneficial conditions. As I said earlier, The Pure Land Buddhism is significantly different from the other schools of Buddhism in asserting that Enlightenment has become too difficult to realise in a human form.

Mantras are used for different purposes, like prayers. For example upon seeing suffering, you might say Om Mani Padme Hum - Avolokiteshvara's Mantra. He is the Buddha of compassion. Of course, having no perception of Buddha Avolokiteshvara, you may take this on faith.

There is also a practical application for mantras too as they direct the mind to virtuous thoughts, which is a kind of mind training.

Reincarnation is one of the aspects of Buddhism that is taken on faith due to the difficulty of gaining insight into it without having developed a certain level of meditative attainment. The actual realities of reincarnation are not the romantic views often spouted by New Age views, but are a very uncomfortable belief. It puts a great onus upon the conduct and practice of a Buddhist due to the law of Karma. Human rebirth is very rare - logical if you consider the number and type of beings on this planet alone - and rests upon the ripening of good karma at a person's death. This takes training.

It is precisely because Buddhism does take a sincere approach that I am a Buddhist. My tradition talks of a path to Enlightenment that can be attained with effort. It is not easy though. It involves developing a great level of concentration, developing Bodhicitta - the mind of compassion, and an understanding of the Buddhist concept of Emptiness. The particular tradition I follow - Gelug - HH The Dalai Lama's tradition - follows 21 Lam Rim Meditations. Each of the concepts needs to be fully understood, but then a deep meditative experience and understanding has to be engaged in.

The faith aspect of Buddhism and Enlightenment comes through faith in The Buddha and subsequent teachers. You do need faith in them and the path they have folowed in order to be inspired to pursue it. I think a significant difference exists here also in that the path has been fully described by the Buddha and Teachers. It is not an illogical leap into the dark or blind faith, but with the guidance of a qualified Teacher, you progress along the path with them available for questions, problems etc.

Faith also arises because of the qualities demonstrated by our Teaches. My wife became a Buddhist on being in the same room as HH The Dalai Lama. It was an unseen, but very real feeling, that impressed her. We have since met other Teachers who were also paragons of the path and very impressive as people.

I think what you are saying - that it takes great faith to believe the irrational - is quite true. As I have said above, a certain type of faith is invested in the Buddhist path, but blind faith, illogical/ irrational faith- in terms of the Buddhist worldview - is less of a factor. The Buddha's own instructions were to test out the teachings and question them.

:D

[NikolaiI]

Buddhism and Christianity both focus on two main points: peace and love. There's no external qualification necessary for doing good work in the world. Yet anyone can find God within themself. Faith is........ God it is so strange to see people talking about faith in such a negative way. Science has even proven that faith is so beneficial but yet people can take such... such a strange view of this proclamation! It is really so strange.

Faith and trust are essential... the Buddha never taught to look externally for truth, and Christians are the same, and Christ taught that the Kingdom of God is within. This is the essence is Christianity and it is who Christians who have deep love and peace within them from a connection to the Divine, it is what they preach. There is love and peace, holiness, within both Buddhism and Christianity.

In Buddhism it's from Buddha Shakyamuni. Jetsun Milarepa. Others.

In Christianity you find it in Christ Jesus of Nazareth. You find it in St. Francis of Assissi.

Both religions teach the existence of the sacred, the consecrate, the holy, the divine.

In Buddhism the path to this is the path from illusion to enlightenment. It's from illusion to light. In Christianity there are also enlightened teachers... here and there... they're rare. Mostly it's people who worship and praise God... who have felt peace, love... they felt the soul perhaps... and they increase their faith and they sow good seeds in their hearts and the hearts of others... this is what I think of Living Christianity. It's said in the Bible, "As you sow, so shall you reap," - which is very much in accord with Buddhism!

As Mirra Alfassa explained... every word, thought, action, is a formation... thoughts and actions are like seeds... our life is the cumulation of all the formations of thought, action, words of our mind and heart.

Another similarity you can find between Buddhism and Christianity is seen in their teachers. True teachers always have a lot of joy and peace. They are not Gods, as some would have it. They are just normal people and another sign of someone like that is humility. They don't pose that they have any power, their main statement is that God has the power. They have peace because they accept when they cannot affect things anymore. But these people are valuable, they are worthy of our respect, even though they may be humble. The why is because they are gradually developing more and more, they are cultivating goodness and they are coming closer to understanding everything, that is, enlightenment. They are closer to understanding truth, or divine consciousness.

What can we do? What do we want? Basically we all want truth. Or if it is wrong to say we all want truth, I would at least postulate that truth alone can fully satisfy us. It's the search that comes after we got everything else. And what the mystics said was that truth is the source of everything - beneath all the layers of existence is truth.

If we want truth, essentially, we have to find the source, that is, return to it. So in philosophy, in thought, in the search for truth, it is really the search for the source, for the origin.

Buddhists teach that one great way to help one attain this is to practice awareness... and one of the best ways of doing this is to meditate on the breath.

You see ultimately... all of our karma... that is... every way in which we've become something we're noot... all of that is illusion.

A dear friend of mine, Geche Dorje, explained this to me. He said that the world of suffering is dependent on mind. It is because the mind is confused that the world of suffering exists. And when the mind becomes illumined, the whole world becomes transformed. Geche Dorje is truly a great man. He's humble as well, and he embodies the ideals of peace and love. Ah well, that may be off topic and I apologize.

The search for knowledge is always a sincere approach to knowledge! A humble mode of searching for knowledge is certainly a sincere approach!

And there are some scant few humans who walked this earth who actually attained divine consciousness, experienced it, either for short time or for lasting. It is in the divine consciousness, when one sees that the cells of the body even are innumerable pure lands, or as Alan Watts put it, millions of gods.

That is a state of union of opposites. The truth is realized... one finds who one really is. Who one really is is the source. You see, why are we the same as the source? Why is it that we cannot be separate? Because we're trying to find... What is it that we once were. What is it that we have made a million changes to, made a million turns in our path, to where we are now?

It's been a part of Eastern wisdom for ages and Western is gradually coming to understand, despite the best efforts of people like Babbalanja, that opposites are part of each other. Ken Wilber among others worked on this problem. Joseph Campbell and Alan Watts, too. Others quietly employ these ideas in their lives... However it may seem like a very dry and abstract, or in other words, unnecessary idea! But the thing is... two poles... they're not part of different realities, they're part of the same reality. The two sides of a coin are part of the same reality, the same coin. This is an essential truth of all existence, and Western philosophy's history has disregarded it for a long time. And it's quite important. Until it's realized, everything is simply illusions.

So the state of enlightenment, in that state the union of opposites is realized. Life and death are seen to be part of the same reality. In revelation and exultation, one asks "How can I be different from the source?" One realizes oneness with the universe, with God. The one who seeks wisdom is the same as the one who gives it, the one who seeks peace is the same as the one who is all peace. In fact it is only the divine consciousness which experiences reality. All other consciousnesses arise from contact, and experiences of creations, imaginations, illusions.

Now it is not true that we are all sick. But... the thing is... there is some sickness. It cannot be denied that in the human race there is more mental disease than in any other animal - more unhappiness, restlessness, depression - well, that is, than any other animal in nature. It must be remembered -------- no animal in nature has ever killed itself!!

So what is the cause? We have mental ability is one difference. It seems quite clear that humans have greater range of possibility of consciousness, or existence. Humans can reach divine peace and love, or they can reach the lowest depths of sadness, despair and suffering. The mental sphere of existence is part, but it is not the end, the goal, the final stage. The mental sphere still deals with opposites, it still uses them and it has not reached the realization of union of opposites. It rejects the idea.

So for the human journey, it is necessary to find... wholeness, completeness, of the organism. This is the crux... the cause of mental problems... that is, when we experience suffering which isn't caused by external events... that's because we're lacking the wholeness, completeness, and harmony of our organism which is present both in divine nature and in animal nature. Animal nature has this harmony but it doesn't have complete awareness. And without awareness there isn't truly peace.

So... what I am expressing is that there exists a divine consciousness, which is attainable. It is experiencing of union with the universe, with one's source, with all Being.

And how to get there... well again I will say all you need is fearlessnes! But actually... effort too.... well and the thing is, we may get there, we may not... who knows. But we should have hope that one day we'll be an enlightened race... may our lives be full of light and peace! Everyone has that proclivity and everyone, also, can tell, instinctively, the difference. And science has even proven that faith in one's self has a remarkable, a truly remarkable effect. And I truly believe that those who got something spiritually meaningful from this discovery of science is far greater than those who ignore it or see in it something confusing!

There are many things which are confusing. What I really believe is that we should search for the truth ourselves... and it's my understanding that what we are searching for is always with us. So that sought-after, that infinite peace, that is always with us, which may be surprising to those who never began a philosophical quest! But what that means is... we can always find that, no matter where we are... we can find peace and light even in the midst of confusion.

But the thing about the two religions is... they are both searching for the same things, peace and love, truth and knowledge. They're not searching for different things, it's not that Christians are searching for God and Buddhists are searching for Truth. God is Truth. And to Buddhists God is reality, and to Christians God is Divine Grace. But they both say, they both say that the essencial reality is light, is peace, is truth. They say so with different languages and poetics perhaps. They also say that you should find it yourself. Another similarity is that Buddha Shakyamuni went to meditate under the Bodh tree, just as Christ went out into the wilderness.

So if one considers this with a mind that has any openness, it is irrefutably clear that both Christ and Buddha taught that one should find Truth for oneself, one should find one's connection to Truth for oneself... no one else. As Devendra said, the need for peace comes from within. The connection to the source, to the Divine, that is an intimate and personal thing, which belongs to every individual as his own, solely his and no one else. Christ Jesus of Nazareth and Budda Shakyamuni both taught this by their example.

Both religions however, do give their own explanations and descriptions of their experience of the holy, the divine, the sacred.

It's clear that the two great teachers whose disciples formed those two religions both taught that the path to the divine, that was an individual's own. They also did give hints by various means that they had seen an Enlightenment which may seem incredible. In the Bible it's described that Christ saw God. And it may be accepted or not, but it is also clear that neither of them taught their realizations as absolute truth - they taught by example that it is a personal experience.

[Paulclem]

I think you are only able to draw comparisons between Christianity and Buddhism by taliking in a non specific way about both. Of course there are similarities in generalisations such as peace etc.

Buddhism and Christianity both focus on two main points: peace and love

Peace and love are not the main points in Buddhism - they arise out of the practice of harmlessness and compassion. The Buddha's first sermon was the Fire Sermon which talks of the suffering of all sentient beings, that they are all suffering - burning in samsara - and then went on to lay out the 4 Noble Truths.

The Four Noble Truths talks of the suffering inherent in existence, and radically says that samsaric happiness is still a form of suffering. This is the Buddha's starting point in his teachings and arose from his experiences and understanding of Birth Ageing, Suffering and Death. Peace and Love in Samsara are still a form of suffering. They are a form of suffering in the sense that in Samsara they will inevitably be subject to change. If you are talking about ultimates, then Wisdom and compassion are more appropriate terms to describe the experience of Enlightenment.

Basically we all want truth.

The teachings say that all sentient beings want happiness. The "we" you are talking about are humans, but The Buddha's path encompasses all sentient beings, which incidentally is another difference between Buddhism and Christianity. Where does Christianity talk about all beings except in terms of a general creation? (This is not intended to be a criticism of Christianity - I'm just flagging up differences).

You do keep referring to the source, which you may have found in a Buddhist book, but I maintain that it does not refer to anything like The Divine. It is not in orthodox Buddhist teachings.

A friend of mine - upon discussing this very thread - made the point that a creator God is redundant in the Buddhist worldview. There is no creation myth. There is no Divine Intervention as the Law of Karma operates. Again the Law of Karma replaces the idea of Judgement, and there is no mention of a Supreme creator God in the Enlightenment experience.

I think you will find it very difficult to draw comparisons between Christianity and Buddhism if you don't do it through generalisations. The Buddhist path is very specific, and very different from Christian teachings. I'm not at all sure why you would want them to be the same anyway. This kind of expression of similarity is probably well meant, but, as I have said before, seems intolerant of difference. What's wrong with there being two dfferent religions? I have no problem with it, as I'm sure both types of religious practitioners don't. True tolerance is being able to accept difference.

[Reiki]

They are different - yet they are the same and it doesn't matter. They are two different ways of trying to understand the universe and striving to lead a "good" life.... whatever that means to you. The differences between how each religion understands "god" don't matter... it doesn't even matter if you even BELIEVE in anything at all. Nothing matters. Your idea of god and mine can coexist peacefully if we could just let each other be. If we could let go of pride and self righteousness we would finally achieve peace. How many wars have started in this world because people were more concerned about their pride than their own peace, safety and happiness - and the peace, safety and happiness of their children and neighbors. At the very root of ALL of the religions is the same thing... we came here by some means and we don't fully understand how, but we are grateful to be alive.... so we try to figure it all out. People also like to live by rules (especially where they concern OTHER people) and traditions... so those are thrown in there as well. Happiness - peace - love - compassion... those are the things that we all wish to have in our lives.... those are the root things that could bind us all together if we could focus on the similarities and not the differences. The differences are beautiful and they should be appreciated for making our world spectacular... but they aren't what matters most.

You say that Christianity does not focus on compassion and harmlessness... but it also does. The more you look closely at these things (and at the original intent of their prophets) the more they become the same... do unto others as you would have others do unto you..... and for your karma example, as you sow so shall you reap. Same thing, different words... and once again it doesn't really matter.

God didn't create religion... PEOPLE created religion. We all came from the same place... from the same "god." Christian people didn't come from a different source than the muslims, the jews, the buddhists or the indians... we all came from the same place (wherever that is) and god loves us all EQUALLY whether we choose to be a christian, a buddhist, an athiest or a pagan... it does not matter. All that matters is that while we are here we can love one another, be compassionate, be peaceful and have a really good time with one another. Life should be a party. Life should be full of joy and fun and happiness. When you feel those things you make the world a better place... and when you can help others to feel that way you are fulfilling the highest expression of yourself.

[Paulclem]

They are different - yet they are the same and it doesn't matter. They are two different ways of trying to understand the universe and striving to lead a "good" life.... whatever that means to you. The differences between how each religion understands "god" don't matter... it doesn't even matter if you even BELIEVE in anything at all. Nothing matters. Your idea of god and mine can coexist peacefully if we could just let each other be. If we could let go of pride and self righteousness we would finally achieve peace. How many wars have started in this world because people were more concerned about their pride than their own peace, safety and happiness - and the peace, safety and happiness of their children and neighbors. At the very root of ALL of the religions is the same thing... we came here by some means and we don't fully understand how, but we are grateful to be alive.... so we try to figure it all out. People also like to live by rules (especially where they concern OTHER people) and traditions... so those are thrown in there as well. Happiness - peace - love - compassion... those are the things that we all wish to have in our lives.... those are the root things that could bind us all together if we could focus on the similarities and not the differences. The differences are beautiful and they should be appreciated for making our world spectacular... but they aren't what matters most.

You say that Christianity does not focus on compassion and harmlessness... but it also does. The more you look closely at these things (and at the original intent of their prophets) the more they become the same... do unto others as you would have others do unto you..... and for your karma example, as you sow so shall you reap. Same thing, different words... and once again it doesn't really matter.

God didn't create religion... PEOPLE created religion. We all came from the same place... from the same "god." Christian people didn't come from a different source than the muslims, the jews, the buddhists or the indians... we all came from the same place (wherever that is) and god loves us all EQUALLY whether we choose to be a christian, a buddhist, an athiest or a pagan... it does not matter. All that matters is that while we are here we can love one another, be compassionate, be peaceful and have a really good time with one another. Life should be a party. Life should be full of joy and fun and happiness. When you feel those things you make the world a better place... and when you can help others to feel that way you are fulfilling the highest expression of yourself.

If you read earlier posts you will find that I mention tolerance for religions. I'm not sure why you feel the need to go on about wars and living together peacefully. Part of my work involves work with our local Salvation Army Hostel. I am vey appreciative of the work they do with the homeless. They've never asked what religion I am. It's not a problem; I consider it to be a very fulfilling aspect of my job. I'm also quite happy to co exist with your idea of God. Buddhism doesn't have an idea of a creator God.

The question we are discussing is whether you can be a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time. It's fine for you to proclaim that it doesn't matter, but there is a risk of confusion. Buddhist teachings are very specific upon the training to be undertaken. It is unhelpful to the concepts being studied and meditated upon to be mixed with another religion's beliefs.

I didn't say that Chrstianity doesn't focus upon compassion and harmlessness. This was in answer to the previous post about what Buddhism focuses upon.

The more you look closely at these things (and at the original intent of their prophets) the more they become the same... do unto others as you would have others do unto you

This is a fine sentiment. It also illustrates the difference between Buddhism and Christianity. Compassion and harmlessness in Buddhism refers to all sentient beings - insects - fish - animals - ghosts - humans - hell realm dwellers - etc. It is present in the prayers we say - which I should point out are not to Buddha in the sense of praying to God.

and for your karma example, as you sow so shall you reap. Same thing, different words... and once again it doesn't really matter.

Superficially the phrase is the same, and again is a great sentiment. Karma though means action; an automatic law that originates from within a being. It is not about judgement, especially external judgement. It is also much more complex than at first look. Karmic seeds are within the continuum of a being and can ripen whenever the conditions allow. Considering that the Buddhist worldview says we have experienced countless lives, this accumulated potential can affect a being for good or ill. There is much more to Karma.


God didn't create religion... PEOPLE created religion. We all came from the same place... from the same "god."

Well Buddhists don't think God created the religions. Buddhism was created, or more specifically, rediscovered by The Buddha. Buddhists don't have a creation myth hence the countless lives idea.

Life should be a party. Life should be full of joy and fun and happiness.

It should be but isn't. The Buddha's teachings are focused upon escaping from Samsaric life through Enlightenment. Furthermore the first teaching of The Buddha on the 4 Noble Truths says that every experience in Samsara is a form of suffering. This is due to the fact that every experience is transient, and this transience is a feature of Samsara.

and when you can help others to feel that way you are fulfilling the highest expression of yourself

For a Buddhist it's not that easy, though it is a fine aspiration to make people happy.

Do you see my point about the differences between Christianity and your idea of Buddhism?

I presume that something in my previous post offended you, but that was not my intention. One of the reasons I am posting here is precisely to put the Buddhist point of view. It is not to compare it favourably against Christianity. (I hope I made it clear earlier that I have the greatest respect for Christianity).

My main point is that the serious Buddhist practitioner has a series of concepts and teachings to meditate on and contemplate. They are often very different to Western and Christian views. Also, a Buddhist goes to refuge to The Buddha, The Dharma and The Sangha, and not to another teacher/ set of beliefs. They choose this or stop at any time.

[NikolaiI]

They are different - yet they are the same

Yes, this is the crux of it. :) It is Buddhist logic actually, not the same and yet the same. Your first line says it simply and truly.

This is part of Buddhist logic which few practitioners understand easily.

Another thing I would say is that there is truth within everyone and everything. Whatever has truth within is sacred and holy. Divisions don't mean that is not true.

It is foolish to think that people outside of Buddhist tradition cannot practice Buddhist prayer and meditation. For example, if other sing Buddhist mantras, and if they have the right spirit of meditation and reverence for them, then it is very powerful.

Paulclem, I am afraid you are missing a lot. You have a set of ideas and you are attached to them, and they are rigid. You think that Buddhism is sectarian which it is for some but not in reality. You are fighting to keep those schools separate, and you say that the schools of Buddhism don't accept each other. You don't accept Mahayanin views of infinite Buddhas and pure lands, nor of those who consider the Buddha divine. There are those who do though, and I am speaking this, and you are arguing against me and saying I am wrong. But you don't understand. :)

Buddha Shakyamuni, peace be upon him (;)), turned the wheel of dharma for this age. I've experienced what that's like. Buddha - in all forms, is also the source of existence. The Dalai Lama may disagree with me but I am speaking from experience. And I am not speaking without scriptural backing either, but your defense is to simply disregard the scriptures I use, such as the Avatamsaka sutra. In it the powers of the Buddhas are described, such as the inconceivable ability to manifest infinite Buddhas and sentient beings, and to illuminate boundless worlds.

I know that you may think that I am wrong to speak of mysicism within Buddhism, but the fact is that it is there. I am not doing this to be mystery-mongering... I was just reading something nice by Swami Vivekananda, albeit about a different subject, Raja-Yoga, which warns against mystery-mongering...

"Anything that is secret and mysterious in these systems of Yoga should be at once rejected. The best guide in life is strength. In religion, as in all other matters, discard everything that weakens you, have nothing to do with it. Mystery-mongering weakens the human brain."

And so I would like to affirm again that I am not speaking from imagination. My approach has been a sincere approach, and what I discovered was not fancy but the end result of my practices. Having said that, there is a problem with saying that there is no mystical experience to be had, even within Buddhism.

As for what Vivekananda says about strength, that is true. He was a strong proponent of the idea that superstition weakens us incredibly. And yet as you know, taking refuge of the Dharma, the Sangha, and the Buddha gives us strength. Not knowing Dharma we would fall into the horrible realms of existence (possibly). And it is a narrow path. But - you know, developing aspiration, that is a huge part of the victory. We may take strength from mantras, from our faith (Sraddha) in the Buddha. These things help. Community and love - those are helpful too.

The thing is... this is illusion... again as I said to you before, it has no more existence than the dreams we have. They seem real, but that is only apparent, and when we wake up we realize it wasn't real. In the same way all this is not real, but only a dream. Our bodies in this life are just like a dream body. Buddhas however have a Buddha-body which is different from the dream body. You can learn about this in Milarepa.

Paul, you are so objectionable to certain ideas, even though other Buddhists mention them. I am referring to Lama Surya Das mentioning the source... and saying as he did, as I have said, that the true way to understand reality is to understand that, as he said, "The shadows themselves are light." This is what I am merely saying, and yet even though it also comes from a Lama, you speak to me as though I am an outsider with no inkling and who may be doing harm. But again, I could summize my whole system of ideas into what Lama Surya Das eloquently said. The shadows themselves are light.

You think the language I use is in complete opposition to Buddhism, such as mentioning the source and love. Although, however, many enlightening Buddhists have said much on the subject of love.

And lastly, you said... it is not helpful to look into other religions... not helpful to your Buddhist practice. But you are speaking beyond your sphere of reference. I was at a Sufi dance gathering, and we sang several Buddhist mantras, each as a different dance... and it was powerfully healing...

Trust me there is nothing wrong with Sufis singing Buddhist mantras... and anyone who tells you it doesn't have power because they're not initiated into a Buddhist lineage or tradition... well you consider for yourself who you think is being more mystery-mongering!

[NikolaiI]

It is not from the beginning of my journey that I thought that this world was illusion, but it was when I woke up from it that I did. When I woke up from it and realized it had no real existence, and when I saw the source of existence (Lotus-throned Buddha), this was when I realized it was illusion. The illusion means - we feel separated, from the universe. The reality is - we are connected to the source, and our whole range of being is the whole universe. They are opposites - one is not knowing, and even if it feels peaceful, it does not compare to the other, which is knowing. But being opposites only means they are two sides of the same coin. Nirvana and samsara are reflections of each other just as life and death are reflections of each other. Where they meet, that is illimitable reality.

[Paulclem]

Yes, this is the crux of it. :) It is Buddhist logic actually, not the same and yet the same. Your first line says it simply and truly.

This is part of Buddhist logic which few practitioners understand easily.

Another thing I would say is that there is truth within everyone and everything. Whatever has truth within is sacred and holy. Divisions don't mean that is not true.

It is foolish to think that people outside of Buddhist tradition cannot practice Buddhist prayer and meditation. For example, if other sing Buddhist mantras, and if they have the right spirit of meditation and reverence for them, then it is very powerful.


Buddha Shakyamuni, peace be upon him (;)), turned the wheel of dharma for this age. I've experienced what that's like. Buddha - in all forms, is also the source of existence. The Dalai Lama may disagree with me but I am speaking from experience. And I am not speaking without scriptural backing either, but your defense is to simply disregard the scriptures I use, such as the Avatamsaka sutra. In it the powers of the Buddhas are described, such as the inconceivable ability to manifest infinite Buddhas and sentient beings, and to illuminate boundless worlds.

I know that you may think that I am wrong to speak of mysicism within Buddhism, but the fact is that it is there. I am not doing this to be mystery-mongering... I was just reading something nice by Swami Vivekananda, albeit about a different subject, Raja-Yoga, which warns against mystery-mongering...

"Anything that is secret and mysterious in these systems of Yoga should be at once rejected. The best guide in life is strength. In religion, as in all other matters, discard everything that weakens you, have nothing to do with it. Mystery-mongering weakens the human brain."

And so I would like to affirm again that I am not speaking from imagination. My approach has been a sincere approach, and what I discovered was not fancy but the end result of my practices. Having said that, there is a problem with saying that there is no mystical experience to be had, even within Buddhism.

As for what Vivekananda says about strength, that is true. He was a strong proponent of the idea that superstition weakens us incredibly. And yet as you know, taking refuge of the Dharma, the Sangha, and the Buddha gives us strength. Not knowing Dharma we would fall into the horrible realms of existence (possibly). And it is a narrow path. But - you know, developing aspiration, that is a huge part of the victory. We may take strength from mantras, from our faith (Sraddha) in the Buddha. These things help. Community and love - those are helpful too.

The thing is... this is illusion... again as I said to you before, it has no more existence than the dreams we have. They seem real, but that is only apparent, and when we wake up we realize it wasn't real. In the same way all this is not real, but only a dream. Our bodies in this life are just like a dream body. Buddhas however have a Buddha-body which is different from the dream body. You can learn about this in Milarepa.

Paul, you are so objectionable to certain ideas, even though other Buddhists mention them. I am referring to Lama Surya Das mentioning the source... and saying as he did, as I have said, that the true way to understand reality is to understand that, as he said, "The shadows themselves are light." This is what I am merely saying, and yet even though it also comes from a Lama, you speak to me as though I am an outsider with no inkling and who may be doing harm. But again, I could summize my whole system of ideas into what Lama Surya Das eloquently said. The shadows themselves are light.

You think the language I use is in complete opposition to Buddhism, such as mentioning the source and love. Although, however, many enlightening Buddhists have said much on the subject of love.

And lastly, you said... it is not helpful to look into other religions... not helpful to your Buddhist practice. But you are speaking beyond your sphere of reference. I was at a Sufi dance gathering, and we sang several Buddhist mantras, each as a different dance... and it was powerfully healing...

Trust me there is nothing wrong with Sufis singing Buddhist mantras... and anyone who tells you it doesn't have power because they're not initiated into a Buddhist lineage or tradition... well you consider for yourself who you think is being more mystery-mongering!

It is Buddhist logic actually, not the same and yet the same. Your first line says it simply and truly.

Buddhist logic speaks in this way, but not about Christianity and Buddhism.

It is foolish to think that people outside of Buddhist tradition cannot practice Buddhist prayer and meditation. For example, if other sing Buddhist mantras, and if they have the right spirit of meditation and reverence for them, then it is very powerful.

In an earlier post I made it clear that the tools of Buddhism are free for anyone to use.

Paulclem, I am afraid you are missing a lot. You have a set of ideas and you are attached to them, and they are rigid. You think that Buddhism is sectarian which it is for some but not in reality. You are fighting to keep those schools separate, and you say that the schools of Buddhism don't accept each other. You don't accept Mahayanin views of infinite Buddhas and pure lands, nor of those who consider the Buddha divine. There are those who do though, and I am speaking this, and you are arguing against me and saying I am wrong. But you don't understand. :)


I have never said this. My own tradition is the Mahayana. Perhaps you are referring to the Pure Land references I made. What I said stands, but I will add that Amitabha Buddha is a part of the Mahayana as the Spiritual Guide of Avolokiteshvara. I have not denied the existence of infinite Buddhas or Pure Lands. I said that the Pure land School of Buddhism is a development into a path that relies upon faith, which is different to the other Mahayana Schools.

Nor am I fighting to keep the schools seperate. I think you must be referring to the Pure Land again. It is seperate in that it has developed on from theusual path.

I know that you may think that I am wrong to speak of mysicism within Buddhism, but the fact is that it is there.

Again I don't know where I have referred to mysticism. In fact Tibetan Buddhism has a strong mystical tradition, which is one of the things that attracted me.

I was just reading something nice by Swami Vivekananda, albeit about a different subject, Raja-Yoga, which warns against mystery-mongering...

"Anything that is secret and mysterious in these systems of Yoga should be at once rejected. The best guide in life is strength. In religion, as in all other matters, discard everything that weakens you, have nothing to do with it. Mystery-mongering weakens the human brain."

I can't comment about Swami Vivekananda. Buddhists rely upon the Dharma and the teacher.

You think the language I use is in complete opposition to Buddhism, such as mentioning the source and love. Although, however, many enlightening Buddhists have said much on the subject of love.

I don't think you are in opposition to Buddhism. I just think your knowledge of the basics is unclear. It doesn't come out in your posts. One of the reasons I post on this thread is so that I can state the accepted Buddhist position. I think that you may feel challenged by my posts, but I'm really not against what you say/ experience. What I want to make clear is that quite often they are not Buddhist, or they are a mixture of ideas.

For example:

The thing is... this is illusion... again as I said to you before, it has no more existence than the dreams we have. They seem real, but that is only apparent, and when we wake up we realize it wasn't real. In the same way all this is not real, but only a dream. Our bodies in this life are just like a dream body. Buddhas however have a Buddha-body which is different from the dream body. You can learn about this in Milarepa.

I don't disagree with this, but you are saying a different thing to previously. previously it was about nothingness which I took issue with.

And lastly, you said... it is not helpful to look into other religions... not helpful to your Buddhist practice. But you are speaking beyond your sphere of reference. I was at a Sufi dance gathering, and we sang several Buddhist mantras, each as a different dance... and it was powerfully healing...

I'm glad you look into other religions, as this seems to suit you. My point on this is that the serious practitioner - and I'm not trying to suggest you are not serious - has a very complex set of theory and instructions to reflect upon and understand. They are very different from Western/ Islamic concepts and there is a problem of confusion.

From my previous post.

and for your karma example, as you sow so shall you reap. Same thing, different words... and once again it doesn't really matter.

Superficially the phrase is the same, and again is a great sentiment. Karma though means action; an automatic law that originates from within a being. It is not about judgement, especially external judgement. It is also much more complex than at first look. Karmic seeds are within the continuum of a being and can ripen whenever the conditions allow. Considering that the Buddhist worldview says we have experienced countless lives, this accumulated potential can affect a being for good or ill. There is much more to Karma.


The teachings on Karma are much more than As you sow, so shall you reap.
Not only is the process different - judgement v the Karmic burden we carry,
but it encompasses the effects of countless lives.

The question of whether a Christian can be a Buddhist and vice-versa is clear to me.

May I repeat that the tools of Buddhism are free for anyone to use without becoming a Buddhist.

I have absolutely nothing against you or anyone posting.

I am also clear that Buddhism could be misrepresented, however well intentioned. It has a complex set of teachings - which take time to absorb, and I am aware that for a long time there have been many misconceptions in the West.

P.S.

Paul, you are so objectionable to certain ideas I hope I'm not objectionable - but I do object sometimes! :lol:

[NikolaiI]

Paul, what I expressed in post 187 I stand to. I am not interested in continuing this. If you do wish to reply to this post, then please know you will have the pleasure of having the last word. I experienced the truth of reality, and I am attempting to share with you this truth. What it tells is that there are thousands of layers of existence which are not even the most real one. The source tells that it is infinite light, joy, peace... but I have said this to you with no breaking of your armor. If you ever attain enlightenment, you will know it is true beyond doubt. I wish you luck and peace.

[Paulclem]

Paul, what I expressed in post 187 I stand to. I am not interested in continuing this. If you do wish to reply to this post, then please know you will have the pleasure of having the last word. I experienced the truth of reality, and I am attempting to share with you this truth. What it tells is that there are thousands of layers of existence which are not even the most real one. The source tells that it is infinite light, joy, peace... but I have said this to you with no breaking of your armor. If you ever attain enlightenment, you will know it is true beyond doubt. I wish you luck and peace.

It's been good for getting my thoughts on Buddhism organised. I'm not sure that this will be the last word though Nik as others have been popping in too.

:smilewinkgrin::thumbs_up

[Reiki]

Paul - I was not offended by you... lol! I just wish that people could love and appreciate one another without arguments or bickering over who's way is better. :seeya:

And I am DONE here! lol! REIKI OUT!

[Paulclem]

Paul - I was not offended by you... lol! I just wish that people could love and appreciate one another without arguments or bickering over who's way is better. :seeya:

And I am DONE here! lol! REIKI OUT!

Thanks Reiki. No worries.

[IceM]

Buddhism is very specific about what constitutes Enlightenment, and it isn't repeating mantas.
:D


Enlightenment can't be taught. It's subjective. It varies from person to person. The belief that Buddhism constitutes what Enlightenment contains and the subsequent belief in this statement seems too dogmatic. Siddartha spent practically his entire life searching for enlightenment because he understood that enlightenment can't be taught; it must be found. Buddhism can't dictate satisfaction. It appears to me that only dogmatic approaches to philosophy would think this.

[Paulclem]

Enlightenment can't be taught. It's subjective. It varies from person to person. The belief that Buddhism constitutes what Enlightenment contains and the subsequent belief in this statement seems too dogmatic. Siddartha spent practically his entire life searching for enlightenment because he understood that enlightenment can't be taught; it must be found. Buddhism can't dictate satisfaction. It appears to me that only dogmatic approaches to philosophy would think this.

No this is incorrect. He initially went to teachers to pursue the ideal of escaping from suffering - ageing, sickness and death.

He found the teachers did not answer this question, but gave him valuable training. So he resolved to realise Enlightenment himself. When he did so, he was exhorted to teach other beings the truth he had found - rediscovered, as there have been previous Buddhas in earlier ages. He then spent the next forty -odd years teaching. This can be read in any biography of the Buddha.

What you may be referring to is that Enlightenment can only be realised by individuals through their own effort. It is not bestowed by an external influence.

Buddhism can't dictate satisfaction

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Buddhist's search is a search for ultimate happiness, freedom from suffering, and this can't be found within Samsara according to the teachings.


Despite knowing the difficulty of this, through his compassion, he then taught the path to Enlightenment which is The Buddha's Path.

[Musicology]

Buddah was searching for the truth. Jesus searched for nothing. He declared Himself to be the Truth. A big difference, yes ?

Buddah founded no religion. He founded, instead, a philosophy. A big difference, yes ? And Buddah (unlike the biblical Jesus) performed no miracles.

Buddah predicted nothing. Jesus did the opposite. The birth of Buddah was not anticipated in the world. But the birth of Jesus was widely prophesised/predicted. A big difference. Buddah fulfilled no prophecies. Jesus fulfilled thousands.

Etc.

The only conclusion we can arrive at by fairly considering these two different things is that Buddhism is a philosophy. While Christianity is a revelation, of true religion. Consistent with what came before. Again, a difference is that Buddhism has no atonement for human sins or a relationship with the Creator of the universe while Christianity does.

Regards

[Paulclem]

Buddah was searching for the truth. Jesus searched for nothing. He declared Himself to be the Truth. A big difference, yes ?

Buddah founded no religion. He founded, instead, a philosophy. A big difference, yes ? And Buddah (unlike the biblical Jesus) performed no miracles.

Buddah predicted nothing. Jesus did the opposite. The birth of Buddah was not anticipated in the world. But the birth of Jesus was widely prophesised/predicted. A big difference. Buddah fulfilled no prophecies. Jesus fulfilled thousands.

Etc.

The only conclusion we can arrive at by fairly considering these two different things is that Buddhism is a philosophy. While Christianity is a revelation, of true religion. Consistent with what came before. Again, a difference is that Buddhism has no atonement for human sins or a relationship with the Creator of the universe while Christianity does.

Regards

Buddah was searching for the truth. Jesus searched for nothing. He declared Himself to be the Truth. A big difference, yes ?

Yes

Buddah founded no religion. He founded, instead, a philosophy. A big difference, yes ?

No, though it depends who you ask. The millions of Buddhists around the world consider it to be a religion. Some non-Buddhists consider it not to be. Whether the religion/ philosophy criteria is agreed upon depends upon your point of view. Theists probably consider non-theistic religions like Buddhism as not qualifying.
Interestingly, Buddhism is open to interpretation like this. A non-Buddhist is free to use the tools employed in Buddhism for their own purposes eg. meditation. Also it's attitude to logic and its systematic approach based upon observation means it appeals to many types of people without requiring a commitment to concepts such as Karma and reincarnation. One such application can be found in psychology, which has lifted many ideas.

And Buddah (unlike the biblical Jesus) performed no miracles.

No. There are numerous examples of "miracles" (though these are not Godpowers/God endowed powers but a side effect of spiritual attainment), performed by the Buddha, such as him visiting Tusheeta Heaven to teach Gods, and the story of his conversion of Angulimala - an Indian serial killer - (though Angulimala had been deluded into it).

Buddah predicted nothing.

No. It is said that The Buddha predicted the birth if Padmasambhava. Predictions are common in Buddhism. The Western spread of Buddhism was predicted by Padmasambhva.

The birth of Buddah was not anticipated in the world.

No, his Mother Mayadevi, dreamt that an auspicious white elephant entered her side at his conception. this was interpreted as being a Buddha. This is different from the prophetic tradition in Judaism though.

A big difference. Buddah fulfilled no prophecies. Jesus fulfilled thousands.

No. It was predicted by an astrologer that he would either become a Chakravartin King - of the world, or a great spiritual leader.

The only conclusion we can arrive at by fairly considering these two different things is that Buddhism is a philosophy. While Christianity is a revelation, of true religion. Consistent with what came before. Again, a difference is that Buddhism has no atonement for human sins or a relationship with the Creator of the universe while Christianity does.

Again it is a matter of opinion about philosophy/ religion. The term true religion is an opinion. Buddhist tradition says that there have been Buddhas before, and that the religion is rediscovered.

Buddhism has no concept of sin, but good and bad karma created by the individual which stains their essential purity.

fairly considering

Has it been a fair consideration?

You're right that there is no relationship with a creator God because the idea of a creator God is not accepted in Buddhism.

So I agree that the two are different, and you can't be both, but not for many of the reasons you give.

A big difference. Buddah fulfilled no prophecies. Jesus fulfilled thousands.

Did Jesus fulfil the Judaic Pophecies?

[Paulclem]

The conclusion I've been arguing is no, it is not possible to be a Christian and a Buddhist.

The reasons for this have been that the two worldviews are mutually exclusive. I know some posters have been arguing that you can be the same on the basis of their belief that there is a God or Divine aspect to the universe and that this is the same as the Buddhist realisation of Enlightenment.

The posters who claim this are no doublt well intentioned in their beliefs, but if it were true, why wouldn't the Buddhist Masters - or The Buddha himself proclaim it?

Similarly, you don't hear The Pope welcoming Buddhists into Catholic Churches or Protestant Ministers Advocating any of the Buddhist beliefs. Why should they when they havea perfectly coherent worldview, as do Buddhists, that fits their culture and beliefs.

A question I raised earlier in the thread is why Christian and Buddhist and why not Christian - Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu? I particularly wonder, as the religions of the Book -Chistianity, JUdaism and Islam are very closely related. They even share Prophets, though their attitude to their nature may differ.

I think one reason is the large misunderstandings that have been propagated about Buddhism - though I don't mean a person, but in the transmission of the ideas over time.

Also, Buddhism is very acommodating with its methods and non-judgemental in aspect.

With a proper understanding of Buddhism as a coherent worldview, with very different ideas to Christianity, I don't think there can be any doubt.

[billl]

Paul, I see you have posted twice in a row. I have been following this thread, and I just want to say that I think you have argued your position quite well, and convincingly.

[Paulclem]

Paul, I see you have posted twice in a row. I have been following this thread, and I just want to say that I think you have argued your position quite well, and convincingly.

Thanks Billl :D

[Maryana]

I think a Christian can't be a Buddhist, though I know a couple of people who genuinely and hopelessly try to be both:) Christians and Buddhists can share many ethical values and... compromise. But if you go really deep into the subject, too many divergences will emerge. Of course, you can combine some Christian ideas with Buddhist ones but... strictly speaking, you'll be neither Christian nor Buddhist then:)

[pianoman_4u]

I like your "who cares?" phrase. That is exactly the appropriate question
!!!

Unfortunately, those clearly to the right of center (Baptists, etc) seem to CARE more about everyone else's business other than their own !!!!

[Paulclem]

In terms of whether a Buddhist practice is effective or not, the question is pertinent. It's not just about being Christian , but also the myriad of New Age type beliefs that people bring to Buddhism that might affect their practice under the misconception that this is what Buddhism is like. People are free to choose, but to make an effective choice, then the practitioner needs to understand the needs of the Buddhist path.

That's not to say that tools used by Buddhists such as meditation techniques and beliefs can't be used by non-Buddhists. In fact someone like HH The Dalai Lama encorages people to retain their own religion but use these tools if they are helpful. I'm merely referring to someone who wants to be a Buddhist and engage with the Buddhist path.

[Musicology]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Buddah was searching for the truth. So was Mohammed. That's recorded fact. But Christ declared himself to be THE TRUTH ! A very big difference, we surely agree !

If a Buddhist wishes to be a Buddhist and wishes to engage with the Christian message there will come for him/her an end of paths and the start of a narrow straight road.

Is this not the vital difference between philosophies such as Buddhism and God Himself ?


In terms of whether a Buddhist practice is effective or not, the question is pertinent. It's not just about being Christian , but also the myriad of New Age type beliefs that people bring to Buddhism that might affect their practice under the misconception that this is what Buddhism is like. People are free to choose, but to make an effective choice, then the practitioner needs to understand the needs of the Buddhist path.

That's not to say that tools used by Buddhists such as meditation techniques and beliefs can't be used by non-Buddhists. In fact someone like HH The Dalai Lama encorages people to retain their own religion but use these tools if they are helpful. I'm merely referring to someone who wants to be a Buddhist and engage with the Buddhist path.

[Paulclem]

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Buddah was searching for the truth. So was Mohammed. That's recorded fact. But Christ declared himself to be THE TRUTH ! A very big difference, we surely agree !

If a Buddhist wishes to be a Buddhist and wishes to engage with the Christian message there will come for him/her an end of paths and the start of a narrow straight road.

Is this not the vital difference between philosophies such as Buddhism and God Himself ?

Yes, The Buddha searched for the truth. He was a Prince called Siddartha Gautama who decided to try to solve the problem of birth ageing sickness and death. The Buddha is a title meaning one who has realised truth.

Your conception of the truth is based upon your Cristian worldview, which is fine. The truth, in Buddhist terms, is a very different thing involving escaping from what is called samsara - basically reincarnated life as we know it. The Buddhist view of this life is that it is full of suffering, and the Buddha's teaching was to teach the path that led to the end of suffering.

[james7777]

Buddha said that he was not a God.

[james7777]

Maybe you don't think there should be divisions, but the Protestants and Catholics have divisions. So do the Theravada and the Mahayana, do you see?

[Paulclem]

Maybe you don't think there should be divisions, but the Protestants and Catholics have divisions. So do the Theravada and the Mahayana, do you see?

Who are you addressing James? I'm quite happy that there are different forms of Buddhism. They just reflect the emphasis of those particular lineages of teachers and the cultues where they developed.

[qimissung]

According to Richard Gere in The Simpsons episode "She of Little Faith," "Buddhism allows for the tolerance of other beliefs" so one can, in effect, be a Christian and a Buddhist.

[billl]

According to Richard Gere in The Simpsons episode "She of Little Faith," "Buddhism allows for the tolerance of other beliefs" so one can, in effect, be a Christian and a Buddhist.
Nice!

And here's how the episode ends, for those who forget:


Marge:........You came back!
Lisa:...........Yeah, I wanted to spend Christmas with you guys.
Homer:.......So you're back on the winning team?
Lisa:...........No, I'm still Buddhist, but I can worship with my family, too.
Marge:........So you're just going to pay lip service to our church?
Lisa:...........Uh-huh.
Homer:.......That's all I ever asked.

[UltimatePanda]

No because in Christianity God said worship no other gods except me and if you are Buddhist you worship Buddha hence : no.

:)

[Paulclem]

No because in Christianity God said worship no other gods except me and if you are Buddhist you worship Buddha hence : no.

:)

It's no but because Christians believe in, and worship, God whereas Buddhists deny the existence of a creator God and follow Buddha's teachings. They don't worship him. You may be mistaking the show of respect for Buddha for worship.

[qimissung]

I really doubt either God or Buddha cares as long as you're a moral (as opposed to amoral) and ethical person, compassionate, self-effacing, giving.

[Paulclem]

I really doubt either God or Buddha cares as long as you're a moral (as opposed to amoral) and ethical person, compassionate, self-effacing, giving.

In terms of being a good person - you're probably right. There's merit in that. Unfortunately for Buddhists, more is needed to overcome ignorence. It requires the pursuit of the path.

[weltanschauung]

can a vegetarian be a carnivore?
can a liberal be a fascist?


*rolls eyes*
some babies simply cant help being stillborn.

[YesNo]

There are various Christian sects. There may be various Buddhist sects, for all I know.

I wonder if it is possible to be a member of all the Christian sects at the same time? Or all the Buddhist sects (assuming there is more than one)?

I suspect it is not possible, based on personal experience within my own family, to be a Lutheran and a Catholic at the same time. It would be difficult to attend both a Catholic mass and a Lutheran service each Sunday. This leads me to suspect it is not possible to be a Christian (generically) and a Buddhist (generically) at the same time.

If nothing else, there is not enough time to practice both effectively.

[Armel P]

From my experience there are different views as to what Buddhism is. There is a traditional view of Buddhism that includes dogma about resurrection as a physical phenomenon and having the possibility of being ressurected as animals. If I am correct in saying that, it would be clear that this sort of Buddhism would be incompatible with Christian dogma, which doesn't say that people's souls return to earth and says that only humans have souls. However, there is a less supernatural Buddhism, a more modern take maybe, that focuses on meditation, living a good life, and not being a slave to worldly posessions. If I'm correct in saying that, that would be in accord with Christianity. But there would also be no need to label one's self in that case as a Buddhist since Christ already taught those things, minus the meditation of course. But then again, Christian prayer can be viewed as a form of meditation.

[Paulclem]

From my experience there are different views as to what Buddhism is. There is a traditional view of Buddhism that includes dogma about resurrection as a physical phenomenon and having the possibility of being ressurected as animals. If I am correct in saying that, it would be clear that this sort of Buddhism would be incompatible with Christian dogma, which doesn't say that people's souls return to earth and says that only humans have souls. However, there is a less supernatural Buddhism, a more modern take maybe, that focuses on meditation, living a good life, and not being a slave to worldly posessions. If I'm correct in saying that, that would be in accord with Christianity. But there would also be no need to label one's self in that case as a Buddhist since Christ already taught those things, minus the meditation of course. But then again, Christian prayer can be viewed as a form of meditation.

The aspects of Buddhism that you describe are not older and newer versions of Buddhism, but have always been part of Buddhism.
Reincarnation - rather than resurrection, (which is a term more appropriate to Christianity) - is part of the Buddha's teachings.
It includes reincarnation as animals, hungry ghosts and hell beings - (negative rebirths), and also humans, demi-gods and gods, (positive rebirths). All reincarnations are unfortunate in the sense of being subject to birth, ageing, sickness and death, but the human one is seen as the most positive, offering the best chance of following the Buddha's path which enables a person to become a Buddha. The prescence of a soul is also denied in Buddhism.

Meditation was taught by the Buddha, as was non-attachment to worldy possessions and ideas. A moral life is laid out in the precepts for becoming a Buddhist.

As for Christ already teaching the moral life, I'm afraid the Buddha predated Christ by 500 hundred years or so.

You are correct to say that there are different Buddhist traditions which reflect the country and cultures into which the teachings came. The teachings are quite consistent, but different schools have different emphases, often involving the type of meditation they practice.

[Armel P]

The aspects of Buddhism that you describe are not older and newer versions of Buddhism, but have always been part of Buddhism.
Reincarnation - rather than resurrection, (which is a term more appropriate to Christianity) - is part of the Buddha's teachings.
It includes reincarnation as animals, hungry ghosts and hell beings - (negative rebirths), and also humans, demi-gods and gods, (positive rebirths). All reincarnations are unfortunate in the sense of being subject to birth, ageing, sickness and death, but the human one is seen as the most positive, offering the best chance of following the Buddha's path which enables a person to become a Buddha. The prescence of a soul is also denied in Buddhism.

Meditation was taught by the Buddha, as was non-attachment to worldy possessions and ideas. A moral life is laid out in the precepts for becoming a Buddhist.

As for Christ already teaching the moral life, I'm afraid the Buddha predated Christ by 500 hundred years or so.

You are correct to say that there are different Buddhist traditions which reflect the country and cultures into which the teachings came. The teachings are quite consistent, but different schools have different emphases, often involving the type of meditation they practice.

You obviously know more than I do. I do know that Buddha pre-dated Christ though. I only said that Christ had those teachings to make the point that if those are the elements of Buddhism that would compel a Christian to call him or herself a Buddhist, it wouldn't really be necessary.

Since you may know, I'll ask. Since the Buddhists deny the presence of a soul, when someone is reborn into another form how do they refer to the essence that gets carried over? How does that concept differ from that of a soul?

[Paulclem]

Sorry I misunderstood your meaning about Christ's teachings.

The classical analogy used is that a flame from a candle lights a second candle. The first candle is blown out, and the second is left. It was caused by the energy from the first flame, but is not the same.

I think the implication is that a being, by their actions in this and other lives, cause a rebirth to take place, but it is not a simple case of Me being reborn in another body.

In fact the implication is that personality and all the mental factors developed in a life dissipate with death. This is not easy to accept on the face of it, but one of the purposes of meditation is to deepen ones awareness of your mind and what is actually a transient element in it.

A beginner may practice meditation on the breath and "watch" thoughts arising and passing in their minds. The knowledge of this undermines the notion that we are a logically thinking, focused being who are in control of all our faculties throuh the force of our personalities. This is the impression we get until we stop and watch. It's like the effect of a film - it all seems joined up, but is in reality a series of fragments moulded into our perceived reality.

[YesNo]

The classical analogy used is that a flame from a candle lights a second candle. The first candle is blown out, and the second is left. It was caused by the energy from the first flame, but is not the same.

Regarding what happens after death is likely a place where someone would have to choose between Buddhism or Christianity.

I'm sure you have heard of near-death experiences. How does Buddhism make sense out of these out-of-body if not actual post-death experiences?

[Bustrofedon]

I was under the impression that the central tenet of Buddhism is the nonexistence of self. This seems completely incongruous to Christian belief.

[Buh4Bee]

I will try to speak for Christianity. The idea of a "self" in Christianity is one that is connected to the trinity (father, son and holy ghost). The self or the believer carries out the will of God as best one can even if it means sacrificing your own will. For example, God's will maybe such that he "asks" a person to server another (feed the homeless) when this person would rather be home in bed reading.

[Paulclem]

Regarding what happens after death is likely a place where someone would have to choose between Buddhism or Christianity.

I'm sure you have heard of near-death experiences. How does Buddhism make sense out of these out-of-body if not actual post-death experiences?

I can't say from personal experience - I'm happy to say - and Buddhism is quite logical and scientific in that sense.

Tibetan Buddhist teachings talk about an intermediate life with a "Bardo" body - a kind of spirit body. This is a short term, intermediate body before the being is drawn to their next life. It's possibly linked to that.

There are also Buddhist practices that train the mind to control dreams for the purposes of meditation. Perhaps it's something to with that - in an untrained spontaneous sense.

[Paulclem]

I was under the impression that the central tenet of Buddhism is the nonexistence of self. This seems completely incongruous to Christian belief.

I agree

[mlogiq]

I think it would be justified to be a Buddhist and a Christian if you considered Buddhism as a philosophy. In reality, it's only a systematic code of ethics because they worship no deity. I think of it as a way to grow closer to God because the 4 Noble Truths is really His goal: to end sin & suffering. You have to remember that God's actions are only a reaction to the suffering we have caused others, so if we eliminate the initial suffering then we please God. It's simple.

[ZTay]

For Christians it's not solely about being and doing good; it's about revering and praising God; and I think supplementing your worship of the God of Israel with any other idols, no matter how benign, is a slight. I'm speaking about true Christian religion mind you; and you can't take away that singular reverence for God without ceasing to be Christian. So no, impossible!

[Big Dante]

The Three Marks of Existence of Buddhism

Dukkha (suffering)
Anicca (impermance)
Anatta (no self)

Buddhism strongly believes that there is no permanent self or transcendence and that the energy of life is Karma. This strongly contradicts Christianity's idea of an afterlife.

The purpose of life for a strongly committed Buddhist is the achievement of Nirvana which is a state of nothing and this is done by avoiding the accumulation of Karma. However it may be seen to use aspects of the Buddha's teachings in shaping one's own moral philosophy. The Noble Eightfold Path was the Buddha's cure for suffering which consists of three main sections being; Prayna (Wisdom), Sila (Ethical Conduct) and Samadhi (Mental Development). Using these concepts however does not make one a Buddhist as they would not have the same beliefs without the acceptance of Nirvana.

To be a true Christian on the other hand one must have full belief in God so it would not be possible for someone to have belief in both God and no God, Heaven and Nirvana. Like Buddhism one could take the morality preached in Christianity such as the acceptance shown in Lk 10:25-37 The Parable of The Good Samaritan. Likewise with Buddhism taking the morality does not truly make one a Christian unless they believe in the Trinity.

[cafolini]

I think Christians could be anything (not all of them of course) robbers, charlatans, despots, nepotists, Bakers, Swaggarts, you name it, except Buddhists. Why? They don't like chocolate. (not all of them of course)

[NikolaiI]

" When you are a truly happy Christian, you are also a Buddhist and vice versa "


- Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh from the book - Living Buddha,Living Christ

:D :)

[blazeofglory]

" When you are a truly happy Christian, you are also a Buddhist and vice versa "


- Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh from the book - Living Buddha,Living Christ

:D :)

Hi Nikolai, my old pal!

I am simply happy to read your post after a long time and I second your thought.

[blazeofglory]

Sit, be still, and listen,
because you're drunk
and we're at
the edge of the roof.”
― Rumi

This is Nikolai' s signature and I cannot fathom the depth of it

[YesNo]

Sit, be still, and listen,
because you're drunk
and we're at
the edge of the roof.”
― Rumi

This is Nikolai' s signature and I cannot fathom the depth of it
Whatever it means, it sounds like good advice if one is drunk and at the edge of the roof like most of us.

Some time ago I signed up for email from the Blue Mountain Center of Meditation. The one I read today reminded me of this thread. Eknath Easwaran was quoted as saying the following that I thought was similar to Nikolai's quote of Thich Nhat Hanh at least regarding happiness:


It is one of the hallmarks of the spiritually aware man or woman that they will always be cheerful, not because they don’t feel deeply, but because they do feel deeply.

[ShadowsCool]

Can a Christian be a buddhist? No Way in hell. That's an abomination to Christian thought

[Paulclem]

Can a Christian be a buddhist? No Way in hell. That's an abomination to Christian thought

A simple no would have sufficed.

[NikolaiI]

Thomas Merton said:
"I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity ... I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can."
(David Steindl-Rast, "Recollection of Thomas Merton's Last Days in the West" (Monastic Studies, 7:10, 1969)
:)

[BienvenuJDC]

A simple no would have sufficed.

Maybe not in Shadows' mind. Emphasis is sometimes needed.

[Paulclem]

Maybe not in Shadows' mind. Emphasis is sometimes needed.

Where's the tolerance in that response though? A simple no would definately be better.

[Darcy88]

No, a Christian cannot be a buddhist. A Christian can be buddhistic, as I believe Christianity in essence is, but if a Christian can be a Buddhist and fill out both in the religion column of some form then that diminishes the meaning of both references to one's identity. Most Buddhism does in fact involve faith. The essence of Buddhism does not, but its actual practice often, in most sects, is accompanied by an intellectual leap beyond what is scientifically and logically certain.

Both religions can be great. I would be proud to belong to either.

[BienvenuJDC]

Where's the tolerance in that response though? A simple no would definately be better.

How does tolerance even apply here. Just because someone chooses to be emphatic about an answer does not mean that they are intolerant about someone else's belief. Why shouldn't I be allowed to say that by no means can someone be a Christian and a Buddhist? I get sick of the over use of the word tolerance, which to some people means...you can't voice your opinion.

[The Comedian]

How does tolerance even apply here. Just because someone chooses to be emphatic about an answer does not mean that they are intolerant about someone else's belief. Why shouldn't I be allowed to say that by no means can someone be a Christian and a Buddhist? I get sick of the over use of the word tolerance, which to some people means...you can't voice your opinion.

I really think that Paul was just askin' for civility. The poster's "No Way in hell. That's an abomination. . ." is antagonistic. He could have expressed with something like "No. Because the essential nature of Christianity is faith in the truth of Christ's divinity, his resurrection, and his ministry. While Buddhist and Christian morality may have some similarities, as faiths, their doctrines are incompatible and therefore one cannot be a fully practicing member of each. . . ."

[ShadowsCool]

Where's the tolerance in that response though? A simple no would definately be better.

I have spoken the truth. I did so with emphasis. My tolerance of others belief's is basically, you believe what you want, but I don't have to listen to it. Any religion formed by man's philosophies, I am adamantly against. I know little about Buddhism and I don't want to know. The only time I would speak to one is to open up their eyes. I have zero tolerance for other religions other than my own belief in Christ. My tolerance of them is they can believe in their own god and I can believe in my God. I don't stop them but I don't have to get along with them other than say hi and bye. And my answer stands.

I know this is not popular into today's "get along" "mingle" "whatever" society, but so be it. I'm not here to please people who want their ears soothe with sweet nothings.

Shadows

[ShadowsCool]

I really think that Paul was just askin' for civility. The poster's "No Way in hell. That's an abomination. . ." is antagonistic. He could have expressed with something like "No. Because the essential nature of Christianity is faith in the truth of Christ's divinity, his resurrection, and his ministry. While Buddhist and Christian morality may have some similarities, as faiths, their doctrines are incompatible and therefore one cannot be a fully practicing member of each. . . ."

That's your opinion. You make it antagonistic by labeling it that way. It's simply my answer. To me that's loving another God. In my religion that is an abomination. All religions basically teach people to be good, moral, whatever. But there are no good people, are there? Who's holy? Who hasn't sinned? You make generalizations about Christianity, but if you really knew about it, you'd know my answer is correct.

[JamCrackers]

The question is poorly defined.
Option A) Can you be social interactive as Christian and Buddhist? Yes.
Option B) Can you learn wisdom from both at the same time? Yes.
Option C) Can you be a student of a great human in both at the same time? Yes.
Option D) Upon mastering both or either can you be both? No. At the point you fully opened your capacity for loving yourself, loving others, accepting life for what it is, and learning to endure the pain that comes with life, you would no longer be either. You would have transformed into an enlightened being. Could you go to two colleges at once? Yes. Could you be students of both AFTER you finished both? No. You would have moved on to greater things. And YES, very few people ever attain enlightenment, so from your point of view - becoming fully human would seem an impossible dream. Sadly, in many ways it is. Jesus and Buddha would appreciate that you try and become fully loving and understanding and compassionate. Neither would fault you for your noble quest. Most people are born to follow and never lead. If you are born to follow, never forget that the other students around you are only child-mind students; they will be cruel to you. Life has lots of cruelty. It is their path. Be compassionate towards them. They do not have the power to snap their fingers and attain true enlightenment.

[ShadowsCool]

JamCrackers, I can find no fault in anything you wrote. We can become enlightened with a Divine Spirit but not within ourselves.

[Paulclem]

How does tolerance even apply here. Just because someone chooses to be emphatic about an answer does not mean that they are intolerant about someone else's belief. Why shouldn't I be allowed to say that by no means can someone be a Christian and a Buddhist? I get sick of the over use of the word tolerance, which to some people means...you can't voice your opinion.

Can a Christian be a buddhist? No Way in hell. That's an abomination to Christian thought

The implication of this post is that Buddhism is anathema to Christianity - the use of the word hell is significant in suggesting the outcome and I think abomination is a word that could be applied to war crimes, serial killing - things like that, but not to Buddhism. Emphatic? What about definately not?

Why shouldn't I be allowed to say that by no means can someone be a Christian and a Buddhist?

I thought we were talking about Shadowscool? If you read previous posts from ages ago, you'd see that I agree with that. I take issue with the way it was said.

I get sick of the over use of the word tolerance, which to some people means...you can't voice your opinion.

I'm really not sure who or what you're beefing about with intolerance. Cool's attitude to me suggests an attitude intolerant to Buddhism. I'm not even sure why you decided to wade in.

[Paulclem]

I really think that Paul was just askin' for civility. The poster's "No Way in hell. That's an abomination. . ." is antagonistic. He could have expressed with something like "No. Because the essential nature of Christianity is faith in the truth of Christ's divinity, his resurrection, and his ministry. While Buddhist and Christian morality may have some similarities, as faiths, their doctrines are incompatible and therefore one cannot be a fully practicing member of each. . . ."

Cheers Comedian - I should have read your post first and just referred to that.

[Paulclem]

I have spoken the truth. I did so with emphasis. My tolerance of others belief's is basically, you believe what you want, but I don't have to listen to it. Any religion formed by man's philosophies, I am adamantly against. I know little about Buddhism and I don't want to know. The only time I would speak to one is to open up their eyes. I have zero tolerance for other religions other than my own belief in Christ. My tolerance of them is they can believe in their own god and I can believe in my God. I don't stop them but I don't have to get along with them other than say hi and bye. And my answer stands.

I know this is not popular into today's "get along" "mingle" "whatever" society, but so be it. I'm not here to please people who want their ears soothe with sweet nothings.

Shadows

The truth is a moot point - so we can leave that.

My tolerance of others belief's is basically, you believe what you want, but I don't have to listen to it.

True - you don't have to listen. But it's nice that others can believe what they want.

Any religion formed by man's philosophies, I am adamantly against. I know little about Buddhism and I don't want to know.

Are you still saying we can believe what we want? If you are happy in your religion - fine - good for you.

I have zero tolerance for other religions other than my own belief in Christ.

So now we can't believe what we want?

My tolerance of them is they can believe in their own god and I can believe in my God. I don't stop them but I don't have to get along with them other than say hi and bye. And my answer stands.

Ah - we can believe what we want. That's ok then.


I know this is not popular into today's "get along" "mingle" "whatever" society, but so be it. I'm not here to please people who want their ears soothe with sweet nothings.

I live in a multicultural city that has Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus Muslims, Bahai, Zoroastrians and others. We mingle and get along. What's wrong with that then?

They don't ask me to believe what they do. I don't ask them to believe what I do. I call that tolerance and respect.

[ShadowsCool]

I get sick of the over use of the word tolerance, which to some people means...you can't voice your opinion.



I'm really not sure who or what you're beefing about with intolerance. Cool's attitude to me suggests an attitude intolerant to Buddhism. I'm not even sure why you decided to wade in.

I'm wondering why you suggest I'm "intolerant" with Buddhist, after you gave a sermon about people who can't voice their opinion. Can I not say what I believe? This is not about my views of Buddhism, it's about the Bible's view regarding man's own vain religions except the Word. So your labeling me as something you don't understand yourself. All religions don't have to agree with each other, do they? Cause they don't.

[Paulclem]

I get sick of the over use of the word tolerance, which to some people means...you can't voice your opinion.



I'm wondering why you suggest I'm "intolerant" with Buddhist, after you gave a sermon about people who can't voice their opinion. Can I not say what I believe? This is not about my views of Buddhism, it's about the Bible's view regarding man's own vain religions except the Word. So your labeling me as something you don't understand yourself. All religions don't have to agree with each other, do they? Cause they don't.

The use of the word hell and abomination suggests an intolerant attitude to me.

As I said to Bien, I agree with you that there are major differences between Buddhism and Christianity. It's more about the way you said it. Hell and abomination? Why use those words?

So your labeling me as something you don't understand yourself.

How do you know that?

All religions don't have to agree with each other, do they? Cause they don't.

Yes - though I don't recall saying that they did. They don't have to agree - but respect is a good start and tolerance is better.

[ShadowsCool]

The use of the word hell and abomination suggests an intolerant attitude to me.

Should I suggest another word? I could but it fit the description I described. I'd rather not say anymore. I'll be tolerant as you say.

You have a God given right to be a Buddhist and I being choosen a Christian.