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.Originally Posted by Tyler Self
^^Perhaps, but the one thing they all share is the fact that a man saves himself through these teachings.
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.
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?
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
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.
Last edited by Tyler Self; 02-08-2009 at 09:22 AM.
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?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
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.
Last edited by NikolaiI; 02-08-2009 at 02:27 PM.
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.
Last edited by Tyler Self; 02-08-2009 at 08:45 PM.
Ok, no worries thenNo 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.- 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."
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?
Last edited by NikolaiI; 02-09-2009 at 07:26 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote