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 !!!!
Printable View
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 !!!!
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.
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 ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicology
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.
Buddha said that he was not a God.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by james7777
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
And here's how the episode ends, for those who forget:
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimatePanda
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
can a vegetarian be a carnivore?
can a liberal be a fascist?
*rolls eyes*
some babies simply cant help being stillborn.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Armel P
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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?
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.
Regarding what happens after death is likely a place where someone would have to choose between Buddhism or Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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 was under the impression that the central tenet of Buddhism is the nonexistence of self. This seems completely incongruous to Christian belief.
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.
I can't say from personal experience - I'm happy to say - and Buddhism is quite logical and scientific in that sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
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.
I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Bustrofedon
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.
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!
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.
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)
" 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!Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
I am simply happy to read your post after a long time and I second your thought.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
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.
Can a Christian be a buddhist? No Way in hell. That's an abomination to Christian thought
A simple no would have sufficed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowsCool
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)
:)
Maybe not in Shadows' mind. Emphasis is sometimes needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Where's the tolerance in that response though? A simple no would definately be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. . . ."Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC