Printable View
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.
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.
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...
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.
Wow, that waves and particles part is an amazing analogy. Thank you. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
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..."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by IceM
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by aquarium444
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
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.
I am sorry that you thought I am such a person as would want to control others and accept no argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
It has no more existence than the dreams you dreamt last night.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
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.