Can a Christian be a Buddhist? Vice-versa?

[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. Gotta love your chutzpah, kid!

[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. Gotta love your chutzpah, kid!

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=jDjYd...eature=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.

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.