Printable View
Why has to be Christianity? Is not a narrow perspective? Let us have broadmindedness? Of course other religions may have to say something indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
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.
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by weepingforloman
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.
Please remember to be nice and respect other peoples personal opinions and beliefs.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
For many theravadin buddhists there is no supernatural belief of any kind involved in buddhism.
Not least perhaps for the Creator...Quote:
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
peace and loving kindness
Z
Granting that God exists in the form we believe, all powerful and all-knowing why would He be surprised?Quote:
Originally Posted by zado_k
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendragon
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,Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendour
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/htm...tsu-vows.shtmlQuote:
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.
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/htm...-apsaras.shtml this is also interesting
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by zado_k
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.
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:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tukaram
Consider the above poem in relationship to John 1.1: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?Quote:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
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,
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/htm...tsu-vows.shtmlQuote:
If, when I attain Buddhahood, humans and devas in my land should even hear of any wrongdoing, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment.