Can a Christian be a Buddhist? Vice-versa?

[Paulclem]

This demonstrates the similarity not only between Christianity and Buddhism, but among all religions: the emphasis on affirming things that can't be understood. The literal meaning (if any exists) of this word-salad is beside the point. What Nik is saying is that anyone can believe something rational and logical: it takes great faith to believe things that are irrational.

The defining cant of contemporary Christians is John 3:16, which makes believers in the 21st century affirm that people survive their physical deaths. Whether they believe that this is literally true (that is, true in the same way that the statement "Albany is the capital of New York" is true) is irrelevant. They are saying that their faith is strong enough to make them affirm something irrational.

Buddhists don't believe in a creator God like Christians do. However, Buddhism is still a religion because it obliges believers to make statements about things they can't rationally understand. If enlightenment consists of repeating meaningless mantras like "all is one" and "your cells are millions of gods, innumerable pure lands," then it doesn't represent a sincere approach to knowledge.

Regards,

Istvan

Buddhism is very specific about what constitutes Enlightenment, and it isn't repeating mantas. You may be referring to Pure Land Buddhism, which repeat mantras in order to gain merit and be reborn in Buddha Amitabha's Pure Land. When reborn in that land, then Enlightenment is easier to attain through teachings because of the beneficial conditions. As I said earlier, The Pure Land Buddhism is significantly different from the other schools of Buddhism in asserting that Enlightenment has become too difficult to realise in a human form.

Mantras are used for different purposes, like prayers. For example upon seeing suffering, you might say Om Mani Padme Hum - Avolokiteshvara's Mantra. He is the Buddha of compassion. Of course, having no perception of Buddha Avolokiteshvara, you may take this on faith.

There is also a practical application for mantras too as they direct the mind to virtuous thoughts, which is a kind of mind training.

Reincarnation is one of the aspects of Buddhism that is taken on faith due to the difficulty of gaining insight into it without having developed a certain level of meditative attainment. The actual realities of reincarnation are not the romantic views often spouted by New Age views, but are a very uncomfortable belief. It puts a great onus upon the conduct and practice of a Buddhist due to the law of Karma. Human rebirth is very rare - logical if you consider the number and type of beings on this planet alone - and rests upon the ripening of good karma at a person's death. This takes training.

It is precisely because Buddhism does take a sincere approach that I am a Buddhist. My tradition talks of a path to Enlightenment that can be attained with effort. It is not easy though. It involves developing a great level of concentration, developing Bodhicitta - the mind of compassion, and an understanding of the Buddhist concept of Emptiness. The particular tradition I follow - Gelug - HH The Dalai Lama's tradition - follows 21 Lam Rim Meditations. Each of the concepts needs to be fully understood, but then a deep meditative experience and understanding has to be engaged in.

The faith aspect of Buddhism and Enlightenment comes through faith in The Buddha and subsequent teachers. You do need faith in them and the path they have folowed in order to be inspired to pursue it. I think a significant difference exists here also in that the path has been fully described by the Buddha and Teachers. It is not an illogical leap into the dark or blind faith, but with the guidance of a qualified Teacher, you progress along the path with them available for questions, problems etc.

Faith also arises because of the qualities demonstrated by our Teaches. My wife became a Buddhist on being in the same room as HH The Dalai Lama. It was an unseen, but very real feeling, that impressed her. We have since met other Teachers who were also paragons of the path and very impressive as people.

I think what you are saying - that it takes great faith to believe the irrational - is quite true. As I have said above, a certain type of faith is invested in the Buddhist path, but blind faith, illogical/ irrational faith- in terms of the Buddhist worldview - is less of a factor. The Buddha's own instructions were to test out the teachings and question them.

[NikolaiI]

Buddhism and Christianity both focus on two main points: peace and love. There's no external qualification necessary for doing good work in the world. Yet anyone can find God within themself. Faith is........ God it is so strange to see people talking about faith in such a negative way. Science has even proven that faith is so beneficial but yet people can take such... such a strange view of this proclamation! It is really so strange.

Faith and trust are essential... the Buddha never taught to look externally for truth, and Christians are the same, and Christ taught that the Kingdom of God is within. This is the essence is Christianity and it is who Christians who have deep love and peace within them from a connection to the Divine, it is what they preach. There is love and peace, holiness, within both Buddhism and Christianity.

In Buddhism it's from Buddha Shakyamuni. Jetsun Milarepa. Others.

In Christianity you find it in Christ Jesus of Nazareth. You find it in St. Francis of Assissi.

Both religions teach the existence of the sacred, the consecrate, the holy, the divine.

In Buddhism the path to this is the path from illusion to enlightenment. It's from illusion to light. In Christianity there are also enlightened teachers... here and there... they're rare. Mostly it's people who worship and praise God... who have felt peace, love... they felt the soul perhaps... and they increase their faith and they sow good seeds in their hearts and the hearts of others... this is what I think of Living Christianity. It's said in the Bible, "As you sow, so shall you reap," - which is very much in accord with Buddhism!

As Mirra Alfassa explained... every word, thought, action, is a formation... thoughts and actions are like seeds... our life is the cumulation of all the formations of thought, action, words of our mind and heart.

Another similarity you can find between Buddhism and Christianity is seen in their teachers. True teachers always have a lot of joy and peace. They are not Gods, as some would have it. They are just normal people and another sign of someone like that is humility. They don't pose that they have any power, their main statement is that God has the power. They have peace because they accept when they cannot affect things anymore. But these people are valuable, they are worthy of our respect, even though they may be humble. The why is because they are gradually developing more and more, they are cultivating goodness and they are coming closer to understanding everything, that is, enlightenment. They are closer to understanding truth, or divine consciousness.

What can we do? What do we want? Basically we all want truth. Or if it is wrong to say we all want truth, I would at least postulate that truth alone can fully satisfy us. It's the search that comes after we got everything else. And what the mystics said was that truth is the source of everything - beneath all the layers of existence is truth.

If we want truth, essentially, we have to find the source, that is, return to it. So in philosophy, in thought, in the search for truth, it is really the search for the source, for the origin.

Buddhists teach that one great way to help one attain this is to practice awareness... and one of the best ways of doing this is to meditate on the breath.

You see ultimately... all of our karma... that is... every way in which we've become something we're noot... all of that is illusion.

A dear friend of mine, Geche Dorje, explained this to me. He said that the world of suffering is dependent on mind. It is because the mind is confused that the world of suffering exists. And when the mind becomes illumined, the whole world becomes transformed. Geche Dorje is truly a great man. He's humble as well, and he embodies the ideals of peace and love. Ah well, that may be off topic and I apologize.

The search for knowledge is always a sincere approach to knowledge! A humble mode of searching for knowledge is certainly a sincere approach!

And there are some scant few humans who walked this earth who actually attained divine consciousness, experienced it, either for short time or for lasting. It is in the divine consciousness, when one sees that the cells of the body even are innumerable pure lands, or as Alan Watts put it, millions of gods.

That is a state of union of opposites. The truth is realized... one finds who one really is. Who one really is is the source. You see, why are we the same as the source? Why is it that we cannot be separate? Because we're trying to find... What is it that we once were. What is it that we have made a million changes to, made a million turns in our path, to where we are now?

It's been a part of Eastern wisdom for ages and Western is gradually coming to understand, despite the best efforts of people like Babbalanja, that opposites are part of each other. Ken Wilber among others worked on this problem. Joseph Campbell and Alan Watts, too. Others quietly employ these ideas in their lives... However it may seem like a very dry and abstract, or in other words, unnecessary idea! But the thing is... two poles... they're not part of different realities, they're part of the same reality. The two sides of a coin are part of the same reality, the same coin. This is an essential truth of all existence, and Western philosophy's history has disregarded it for a long time. And it's quite important. Until it's realized, everything is simply illusions.

So the state of enlightenment, in that state the union of opposites is realized. Life and death are seen to be part of the same reality. In revelation and exultation, one asks "How can I be different from the source?" One realizes oneness with the universe, with God. The one who seeks wisdom is the same as the one who gives it, the one who seeks peace is the same as the one who is all peace. In fact it is only the divine consciousness which experiences reality. All other consciousnesses arise from contact, and experiences of creations, imaginations, illusions.

Now it is not true that we are all sick. But... the thing is... there is some sickness. It cannot be denied that in the human race there is more mental disease than in any other animal - more unhappiness, restlessness, depression - well, that is, than any other animal in nature. It must be remembered -------- no animal in nature has ever killed itself!!

So what is the cause? We have mental ability is one difference. It seems quite clear that humans have greater range of possibility of consciousness, or existence. Humans can reach divine peace and love, or they can reach the lowest depths of sadness, despair and suffering. The mental sphere of existence is part, but it is not the end, the goal, the final stage. The mental sphere still deals with opposites, it still uses them and it has not reached the realization of union of opposites. It rejects the idea.

So for the human journey, it is necessary to find... wholeness, completeness, of the organism. This is the crux... the cause of mental problems... that is, when we experience suffering which isn't caused by external events... that's because we're lacking the wholeness, completeness, and harmony of our organism which is present both in divine nature and in animal nature. Animal nature has this harmony but it doesn't have complete awareness. And without awareness there isn't truly peace.

So... what I am expressing is that there exists a divine consciousness, which is attainable. It is experiencing of union with the universe, with one's source, with all Being.

And how to get there... well again I will say all you need is fearlessnes! But actually... effort too.... well and the thing is, we may get there, we may not... who knows. But we should have hope that one day we'll be an enlightened race... may our lives be full of light and peace! Everyone has that proclivity and everyone, also, can tell, instinctively, the difference. And science has even proven that faith in one's self has a remarkable, a truly remarkable effect. And I truly believe that those who got something spiritually meaningful from this discovery of science is far greater than those who ignore it or see in it something confusing!

There are many things which are confusing. What I really believe is that we should search for the truth ourselves... and it's my understanding that what we are searching for is always with us. So that sought-after, that infinite peace, that is always with us, which may be surprising to those who never began a philosophical quest! But what that means is... we can always find that, no matter where we are... we can find peace and light even in the midst of confusion.

But the thing about the two religions is... they are both searching for the same things, peace and love, truth and knowledge. They're not searching for different things, it's not that Christians are searching for God and Buddhists are searching for Truth. God is Truth. And to Buddhists God is reality, and to Christians God is Divine Grace. But they both say, they both say that the essencial reality is light, is peace, is truth. They say so with different languages and poetics perhaps. They also say that you should find it yourself. Another similarity is that Buddha Shakyamuni went to meditate under the Bodh tree, just as Christ went out into the wilderness.

So if one considers this with a mind that has any openness, it is irrefutably clear that both Christ and Buddha taught that one should find Truth for oneself, one should find one's connection to Truth for oneself... no one else. As Devendra said, the need for peace comes from within. The connection to the source, to the Divine, that is an intimate and personal thing, which belongs to every individual as his own, solely his and no one else. Christ Jesus of Nazareth and Budda Shakyamuni both taught this by their example.

Both religions however, do give their own explanations and descriptions of their experience of the holy, the divine, the sacred.

It's clear that the two great teachers whose disciples formed those two religions both taught that the path to the divine, that was an individual's own. They also did give hints by various means that they had seen an Enlightenment which may seem incredible. In the Bible it's described that Christ saw God. And it may be accepted or not, but it is also clear that neither of them taught their realizations as absolute truth - they taught by example that it is a personal experience.

[Paulclem]

I think you are only able to draw comparisons between Christianity and Buddhism by taliking in a non specific way about both. Of course there are similarities in generalisations such as peace etc.

Buddhism and Christianity both focus on two main points: peace and love

Peace and love are not the main points in Buddhism - they arise out of the practice of harmlessness and compassion. The Buddha's first sermon was the Fire Sermon which talks of the suffering of all sentient beings, that they are all suffering - burning in samsara - and then went on to lay out the 4 Noble Truths.

The Four Noble Truths talks of the suffering inherent in existence, and radically says that samsaric happiness is still a form of suffering. This is the Buddha's starting point in his teachings and arose from his experiences and understanding of Birth Ageing, Suffering and Death. Peace and Love in Samsara are still a form of suffering. They are a form of suffering in the sense that in Samsara they will inevitably be subject to change. If you are talking about ultimates, then Wisdom and compassion are more appropriate terms to describe the experience of Enlightenment.

Basically we all want truth.

The teachings say that all sentient beings want happiness. The "we" you are talking about are humans, but The Buddha's path encompasses all sentient beings, which incidentally is another difference between Buddhism and Christianity. Where does Christianity talk about all beings except in terms of a general creation? (This is not intended to be a criticism of Christianity - I'm just flagging up differences).

You do keep referring to the source, which you may have found in a Buddhist book, but I maintain that it does not refer to anything like The Divine. It is not in orthodox Buddhist teachings.

A friend of mine - upon discussing this very thread - made the point that a creator God is redundant in the Buddhist worldview. There is no creation myth. There is no Divine Intervention as the Law of Karma operates. Again the Law of Karma replaces the idea of Judgement, and there is no mention of a Supreme creator God in the Enlightenment experience.

I think you will find it very difficult to draw comparisons between Christianity and Buddhism if you don't do it through generalisations. The Buddhist path is very specific, and very different from Christian teachings. I'm not at all sure why you would want them to be the same anyway. This kind of expression of similarity is probably well meant, but, as I have said before, seems intolerant of difference. What's wrong with there being two dfferent religions? I have no problem with it, as I'm sure both types of religious practitioners don't. True tolerance is being able to accept difference.

[Reiki]

They are different - yet they are the same and it doesn't matter. They are two different ways of trying to understand the universe and striving to lead a "good" life.... whatever that means to you. The differences between how each religion understands "god" don't matter... it doesn't even matter if you even BELIEVE in anything at all. Nothing matters. Your idea of god and mine can coexist peacefully if we could just let each other be. If we could let go of pride and self righteousness we would finally achieve peace. How many wars have started in this world because people were more concerned about their pride than their own peace, safety and happiness - and the peace, safety and happiness of their children and neighbors. At the very root of ALL of the religions is the same thing... we came here by some means and we don't fully understand how, but we are grateful to be alive.... so we try to figure it all out. People also like to live by rules (especially where they concern OTHER people) and traditions... so those are thrown in there as well. Happiness - peace - love - compassion... those are the things that we all wish to have in our lives.... those are the root things that could bind us all together if we could focus on the similarities and not the differences. The differences are beautiful and they should be appreciated for making our world spectacular... but they aren't what matters most.

You say that Christianity does not focus on compassion and harmlessness... but it also does. The more you look closely at these things (and at the original intent of their prophets) the more they become the same... do unto others as you would have others do unto you..... and for your karma example, as you sow so shall you reap. Same thing, different words... and once again it doesn't really matter.

God didn't create religion... PEOPLE created religion. We all came from the same place... from the same "god." Christian people didn't come from a different source than the muslims, the jews, the buddhists or the indians... we all came from the same place (wherever that is) and god loves us all EQUALLY whether we choose to be a christian, a buddhist, an athiest or a pagan... it does not matter. All that matters is that while we are here we can love one another, be compassionate, be peaceful and have a really good time with one another. Life should be a party. Life should be full of joy and fun and happiness. When you feel those things you make the world a better place... and when you can help others to feel that way you are fulfilling the highest expression of yourself.

[Paulclem]

They are different - yet they are the same and it doesn't matter. They are two different ways of trying to understand the universe and striving to lead a "good" life.... whatever that means to you. The differences between how each religion understands "god" don't matter... it doesn't even matter if you even BELIEVE in anything at all. Nothing matters. Your idea of god and mine can coexist peacefully if we could just let each other be. If we could let go of pride and self righteousness we would finally achieve peace. How many wars have started in this world because people were more concerned about their pride than their own peace, safety and happiness - and the peace, safety and happiness of their children and neighbors. At the very root of ALL of the religions is the same thing... we came here by some means and we don't fully understand how, but we are grateful to be alive.... so we try to figure it all out. People also like to live by rules (especially where they concern OTHER people) and traditions... so those are thrown in there as well. Happiness - peace - love - compassion... those are the things that we all wish to have in our lives.... those are the root things that could bind us all together if we could focus on the similarities and not the differences. The differences are beautiful and they should be appreciated for making our world spectacular... but they aren't what matters most.

You say that Christianity does not focus on compassion and harmlessness... but it also does. The more you look closely at these things (and at the original intent of their prophets) the more they become the same... do unto others as you would have others do unto you..... and for your karma example, as you sow so shall you reap. Same thing, different words... and once again it doesn't really matter.

God didn't create religion... PEOPLE created religion. We all came from the same place... from the same "god." Christian people didn't come from a different source than the muslims, the jews, the buddhists or the indians... we all came from the same place (wherever that is) and god loves us all EQUALLY whether we choose to be a christian, a buddhist, an athiest or a pagan... it does not matter. All that matters is that while we are here we can love one another, be compassionate, be peaceful and have a really good time with one another. Life should be a party. Life should be full of joy and fun and happiness. When you feel those things you make the world a better place... and when you can help others to feel that way you are fulfilling the highest expression of yourself.

If you read earlier posts you will find that I mention tolerance for religions. I'm not sure why you feel the need to go on about wars and living together peacefully. Part of my work involves work with our local Salvation Army Hostel. I am vey appreciative of the work they do with the homeless. They've never asked what religion I am. It's not a problem; I consider it to be a very fulfilling aspect of my job. I'm also quite happy to co exist with your idea of God. Buddhism doesn't have an idea of a creator God.

The question we are discussing is whether you can be a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time. It's fine for you to proclaim that it doesn't matter, but there is a risk of confusion. Buddhist teachings are very specific upon the training to be undertaken. It is unhelpful to the concepts being studied and meditated upon to be mixed with another religion's beliefs.

I didn't say that Chrstianity doesn't focus upon compassion and harmlessness. This was in answer to the previous post about what Buddhism focuses upon.

The more you look closely at these things (and at the original intent of their prophets) the more they become the same... do unto others as you would have others do unto you

This is a fine sentiment. It also illustrates the difference between Buddhism and Christianity. Compassion and harmlessness in Buddhism refers to all sentient beings - insects - fish - animals - ghosts - humans - hell realm dwellers - etc. It is present in the prayers we say - which I should point out are not to Buddha in the sense of praying to God.

and for your karma example, as you sow so shall you reap. Same thing, different words... and once again it doesn't really matter.

Superficially the phrase is the same, and again is a great sentiment. Karma though means action; an automatic law that originates from within a being. It is not about judgement, especially external judgement. It is also much more complex than at first look. Karmic seeds are within the continuum of a being and can ripen whenever the conditions allow. Considering that the Buddhist worldview says we have experienced countless lives, this accumulated potential can affect a being for good or ill. There is much more to Karma.


God didn't create religion... PEOPLE created religion. We all came from the same place... from the same "god."

Well Buddhists don't think God created the religions. Buddhism was created, or more specifically, rediscovered by The Buddha. Buddhists don't have a creation myth hence the countless lives idea.

Life should be a party. Life should be full of joy and fun and happiness.

It should be but isn't. The Buddha's teachings are focused upon escaping from Samsaric life through Enlightenment. Furthermore the first teaching of The Buddha on the 4 Noble Truths says that every experience in Samsara is a form of suffering. This is due to the fact that every experience is transient, and this transience is a feature of Samsara.

and when you can help others to feel that way you are fulfilling the highest expression of yourself

For a Buddhist it's not that easy, though it is a fine aspiration to make people happy.

Do you see my point about the differences between Christianity and your idea of Buddhism?

I presume that something in my previous post offended you, but that was not my intention. One of the reasons I am posting here is precisely to put the Buddhist point of view. It is not to compare it favourably against Christianity. (I hope I made it clear earlier that I have the greatest respect for Christianity).

My main point is that the serious Buddhist practitioner has a series of concepts and teachings to meditate on and contemplate. They are often very different to Western and Christian views. Also, a Buddhist goes to refuge to The Buddha, The Dharma and The Sangha, and not to another teacher/ set of beliefs. They choose this or stop at any time.

[NikolaiI]

They are different - yet they are the same

Yes, this is the crux of it. It is Buddhist logic actually, not the same and yet the same. Your first line says it simply and truly.

This is part of Buddhist logic which few practitioners understand easily.

Another thing I would say is that there is truth within everyone and everything. Whatever has truth within is sacred and holy. Divisions don't mean that is not true.

It is foolish to think that people outside of Buddhist tradition cannot practice Buddhist prayer and meditation. For example, if other sing Buddhist mantras, and if they have the right spirit of meditation and reverence for them, then it is very powerful.

Paulclem, I am afraid you are missing a lot. You have a set of ideas and you are attached to them, and they are rigid. You think that Buddhism is sectarian which it is for some but not in reality. You are fighting to keep those schools separate, and you say that the schools of Buddhism don't accept each other. You don't accept Mahayanin views of infinite Buddhas and pure lands, nor of those who consider the Buddha divine. There are those who do though, and I am speaking this, and you are arguing against me and saying I am wrong. But you don't understand.

Buddha Shakyamuni, peace be upon him (), turned the wheel of dharma for this age. I've experienced what that's like. Buddha - in all forms, is also the source of existence. The Dalai Lama may disagree with me but I am speaking from experience. And I am not speaking without scriptural backing either, but your defense is to simply disregard the scriptures I use, such as the Avatamsaka sutra. In it the powers of the Buddhas are described, such as the inconceivable ability to manifest infinite Buddhas and sentient beings, and to illuminate boundless worlds.

I know that you may think that I am wrong to speak of mysicism within Buddhism, but the fact is that it is there. I am not doing this to be mystery-mongering... I was just reading something nice by Swami Vivekananda, albeit about a different subject, Raja-Yoga, which warns against mystery-mongering...

"Anything that is secret and mysterious in these systems of Yoga should be at once rejected. The best guide in life is strength. In religion, as in all other matters, discard everything that weakens you, have nothing to do with it. Mystery-mongering weakens the human brain."

And so I would like to affirm again that I am not speaking from imagination. My approach has been a sincere approach, and what I discovered was not fancy but the end result of my practices. Having said that, there is a problem with saying that there is no mystical experience to be had, even within Buddhism.

As for what Vivekananda says about strength, that is true. He was a strong proponent of the idea that superstition weakens us incredibly. And yet as you know, taking refuge of the Dharma, the Sangha, and the Buddha gives us strength. Not knowing Dharma we would fall into the horrible realms of existence (possibly). And it is a narrow path. But - you know, developing aspiration, that is a huge part of the victory. We may take strength from mantras, from our faith (Sraddha) in the Buddha. These things help. Community and love - those are helpful too.

The thing is... this is illusion... again as I said to you before, it has no more existence than the dreams we have. They seem real, but that is only apparent, and when we wake up we realize it wasn't real. In the same way all this is not real, but only a dream. Our bodies in this life are just like a dream body. Buddhas however have a Buddha-body which is different from the dream body. You can learn about this in Milarepa.

Paul, you are so objectionable to certain ideas, even though other Buddhists mention them. I am referring to Lama Surya Das mentioning the source... and saying as he did, as I have said, that the true way to understand reality is to understand that, as he said, "The shadows themselves are light." This is what I am merely saying, and yet even though it also comes from a Lama, you speak to me as though I am an outsider with no inkling and who may be doing harm. But again, I could summize my whole system of ideas into what Lama Surya Das eloquently said. The shadows themselves are light.

You think the language I use is in complete opposition to Buddhism, such as mentioning the source and love. Although, however, many enlightening Buddhists have said much on the subject of love.

And lastly, you said... it is not helpful to look into other religions... not helpful to your Buddhist practice. But you are speaking beyond your sphere of reference. I was at a Sufi dance gathering, and we sang several Buddhist mantras, each as a different dance... and it was powerfully healing...

Trust me there is nothing wrong with Sufis singing Buddhist mantras... and anyone who tells you it doesn't have power because they're not initiated into a Buddhist lineage or tradition... well you consider for yourself who you think is being more mystery-mongering!

[NikolaiI]

It is not from the beginning of my journey that I thought that this world was illusion, but it was when I woke up from it that I did. When I woke up from it and realized it had no real existence, and when I saw the source of existence (Lotus-throned Buddha), this was when I realized it was illusion. The illusion means - we feel separated, from the universe. The reality is - we are connected to the source, and our whole range of being is the whole universe. They are opposites - one is not knowing, and even if it feels peaceful, it does not compare to the other, which is knowing. But being opposites only means they are two sides of the same coin. Nirvana and samsara are reflections of each other just as life and death are reflections of each other. Where they meet, that is illimitable reality.

[Paulclem]

Yes, this is the crux of it. It is Buddhist logic actually, not the same and yet the same. Your first line says it simply and truly.

This is part of Buddhist logic which few practitioners understand easily.

Another thing I would say is that there is truth within everyone and everything. Whatever has truth within is sacred and holy. Divisions don't mean that is not true.

It is foolish to think that people outside of Buddhist tradition cannot practice Buddhist prayer and meditation. For example, if other sing Buddhist mantras, and if they have the right spirit of meditation and reverence for them, then it is very powerful.


Buddha Shakyamuni, peace be upon him (), turned the wheel of dharma for this age. I've experienced what that's like. Buddha - in all forms, is also the source of existence. The Dalai Lama may disagree with me but I am speaking from experience. And I am not speaking without scriptural backing either, but your defense is to simply disregard the scriptures I use, such as the Avatamsaka sutra. In it the powers of the Buddhas are described, such as the inconceivable ability to manifest infinite Buddhas and sentient beings, and to illuminate boundless worlds.

I know that you may think that I am wrong to speak of mysicism within Buddhism, but the fact is that it is there. I am not doing this to be mystery-mongering... I was just reading something nice by Swami Vivekananda, albeit about a different subject, Raja-Yoga, which warns against mystery-mongering...

"Anything that is secret and mysterious in these systems of Yoga should be at once rejected. The best guide in life is strength. In religion, as in all other matters, discard everything that weakens you, have nothing to do with it. Mystery-mongering weakens the human brain."

And so I would like to affirm again that I am not speaking from imagination. My approach has been a sincere approach, and what I discovered was not fancy but the end result of my practices. Having said that, there is a problem with saying that there is no mystical experience to be had, even within Buddhism.

As for what Vivekananda says about strength, that is true. He was a strong proponent of the idea that superstition weakens us incredibly. And yet as you know, taking refuge of the Dharma, the Sangha, and the Buddha gives us strength. Not knowing Dharma we would fall into the horrible realms of existence (possibly). And it is a narrow path. But - you know, developing aspiration, that is a huge part of the victory. We may take strength from mantras, from our faith (Sraddha) in the Buddha. These things help. Community and love - those are helpful too.

The thing is... this is illusion... again as I said to you before, it has no more existence than the dreams we have. They seem real, but that is only apparent, and when we wake up we realize it wasn't real. In the same way all this is not real, but only a dream. Our bodies in this life are just like a dream body. Buddhas however have a Buddha-body which is different from the dream body. You can learn about this in Milarepa.

Paul, you are so objectionable to certain ideas, even though other Buddhists mention them. I am referring to Lama Surya Das mentioning the source... and saying as he did, as I have said, that the true way to understand reality is to understand that, as he said, "The shadows themselves are light." This is what I am merely saying, and yet even though it also comes from a Lama, you speak to me as though I am an outsider with no inkling and who may be doing harm. But again, I could summize my whole system of ideas into what Lama Surya Das eloquently said. The shadows themselves are light.

You think the language I use is in complete opposition to Buddhism, such as mentioning the source and love. Although, however, many enlightening Buddhists have said much on the subject of love.

And lastly, you said... it is not helpful to look into other religions... not helpful to your Buddhist practice. But you are speaking beyond your sphere of reference. I was at a Sufi dance gathering, and we sang several Buddhist mantras, each as a different dance... and it was powerfully healing...

Trust me there is nothing wrong with Sufis singing Buddhist mantras... and anyone who tells you it doesn't have power because they're not initiated into a Buddhist lineage or tradition... well you consider for yourself who you think is being more mystery-mongering!

It is Buddhist logic actually, not the same and yet the same. Your first line says it simply and truly.

Buddhist logic speaks in this way, but not about Christianity and Buddhism.

It is foolish to think that people outside of Buddhist tradition cannot practice Buddhist prayer and meditation. For example, if other sing Buddhist mantras, and if they have the right spirit of meditation and reverence for them, then it is very powerful.

In an earlier post I made it clear that the tools of Buddhism are free for anyone to use.

Paulclem, I am afraid you are missing a lot. You have a set of ideas and you are attached to them, and they are rigid. You think that Buddhism is sectarian which it is for some but not in reality. You are fighting to keep those schools separate, and you say that the schools of Buddhism don't accept each other. You don't accept Mahayanin views of infinite Buddhas and pure lands, nor of those who consider the Buddha divine. There are those who do though, and I am speaking this, and you are arguing against me and saying I am wrong. But you don't understand.


I have never said this. My own tradition is the Mahayana. Perhaps you are referring to the Pure Land references I made. What I said stands, but I will add that Amitabha Buddha is a part of the Mahayana as the Spiritual Guide of Avolokiteshvara. I have not denied the existence of infinite Buddhas or Pure Lands. I said that the Pure land School of Buddhism is a development into a path that relies upon faith, which is different to the other Mahayana Schools.

Nor am I fighting to keep the schools seperate. I think you must be referring to the Pure Land again. It is seperate in that it has developed on from theusual path.

I know that you may think that I am wrong to speak of mysicism within Buddhism, but the fact is that it is there.

Again I don't know where I have referred to mysticism. In fact Tibetan Buddhism has a strong mystical tradition, which is one of the things that attracted me.

I was just reading something nice by Swami Vivekananda, albeit about a different subject, Raja-Yoga, which warns against mystery-mongering...

"Anything that is secret and mysterious in these systems of Yoga should be at once rejected. The best guide in life is strength. In religion, as in all other matters, discard everything that weakens you, have nothing to do with it. Mystery-mongering weakens the human brain."

I can't comment about Swami Vivekananda. Buddhists rely upon the Dharma and the teacher.

You think the language I use is in complete opposition to Buddhism, such as mentioning the source and love. Although, however, many enlightening Buddhists have said much on the subject of love.

I don't think you are in opposition to Buddhism. I just think your knowledge of the basics is unclear. It doesn't come out in your posts. One of the reasons I post on this thread is so that I can state the accepted Buddhist position. I think that you may feel challenged by my posts, but I'm really not against what you say/ experience. What I want to make clear is that quite often they are not Buddhist, or they are a mixture of ideas.

For example:

The thing is... this is illusion... again as I said to you before, it has no more existence than the dreams we have. They seem real, but that is only apparent, and when we wake up we realize it wasn't real. In the same way all this is not real, but only a dream. Our bodies in this life are just like a dream body. Buddhas however have a Buddha-body which is different from the dream body. You can learn about this in Milarepa.

I don't disagree with this, but you are saying a different thing to previously. previously it was about nothingness which I took issue with.

And lastly, you said... it is not helpful to look into other religions... not helpful to your Buddhist practice. But you are speaking beyond your sphere of reference. I was at a Sufi dance gathering, and we sang several Buddhist mantras, each as a different dance... and it was powerfully healing...

I'm glad you look into other religions, as this seems to suit you. My point on this is that the serious practitioner - and I'm not trying to suggest you are not serious - has a very complex set of theory and instructions to reflect upon and understand. They are very different from Western/ Islamic concepts and there is a problem of confusion.

From my previous post.

and for your karma example, as you sow so shall you reap. Same thing, different words... and once again it doesn't really matter.

Superficially the phrase is the same, and again is a great sentiment. Karma though means action; an automatic law that originates from within a being. It is not about judgement, especially external judgement. It is also much more complex than at first look. Karmic seeds are within the continuum of a being and can ripen whenever the conditions allow. Considering that the Buddhist worldview says we have experienced countless lives, this accumulated potential can affect a being for good or ill. There is much more to Karma.


The teachings on Karma are much more than As you sow, so shall you reap.
Not only is the process different - judgement v the Karmic burden we carry,
but it encompasses the effects of countless lives.

The question of whether a Christian can be a Buddhist and vice-versa is clear to me.

May I repeat that the tools of Buddhism are free for anyone to use without becoming a Buddhist.

I have absolutely nothing against you or anyone posting.

I am also clear that Buddhism could be misrepresented, however well intentioned. It has a complex set of teachings - which take time to absorb, and I am aware that for a long time there have been many misconceptions in the West.

P.S.

Paul, you are so objectionable to certain ideas I hope I'm not objectionable - but I do object sometimes!

[NikolaiI]

Paul, what I expressed in post 187 I stand to. I am not interested in continuing this. If you do wish to reply to this post, then please know you will have the pleasure of having the last word. I experienced the truth of reality, and I am attempting to share with you this truth. What it tells is that there are thousands of layers of existence which are not even the most real one. The source tells that it is infinite light, joy, peace... but I have said this to you with no breaking of your armor. If you ever attain enlightenment, you will know it is true beyond doubt. I wish you luck and peace.

[Paulclem]

Paul, what I expressed in post 187 I stand to. I am not interested in continuing this. If you do wish to reply to this post, then please know you will have the pleasure of having the last word. I experienced the truth of reality, and I am attempting to share with you this truth. What it tells is that there are thousands of layers of existence which are not even the most real one. The source tells that it is infinite light, joy, peace... but I have said this to you with no breaking of your armor. If you ever attain enlightenment, you will know it is true beyond doubt. I wish you luck and peace.

It's been good for getting my thoughts on Buddhism organised. I'm not sure that this will be the last word though Nik as others have been popping in too.

[Reiki]

Paul - I was not offended by you... lol! I just wish that people could love and appreciate one another without arguments or bickering over who's way is better.

And I am DONE here! lol! REIKI OUT!

[Paulclem]

Paul - I was not offended by you... lol! I just wish that people could love and appreciate one another without arguments or bickering over who's way is better.

And I am DONE here! lol! REIKI OUT!

Thanks Reiki. No worries.

[IceM]

Buddhism is very specific about what constitutes Enlightenment, and it isn't repeating mantas.

Enlightenment can't be taught. It's subjective. It varies from person to person. The belief that Buddhism constitutes what Enlightenment contains and the subsequent belief in this statement seems too dogmatic. Siddartha spent practically his entire life searching for enlightenment because he understood that enlightenment can't be taught; it must be found. Buddhism can't dictate satisfaction. It appears to me that only dogmatic approaches to philosophy would think this.

[Paulclem]

Enlightenment can't be taught. It's subjective. It varies from person to person. The belief that Buddhism constitutes what Enlightenment contains and the subsequent belief in this statement seems too dogmatic. Siddartha spent practically his entire life searching for enlightenment because he understood that enlightenment can't be taught; it must be found. Buddhism can't dictate satisfaction. It appears to me that only dogmatic approaches to philosophy would think this.

No this is incorrect. He initially went to teachers to pursue the ideal of escaping from suffering - ageing, sickness and death.

He found the teachers did not answer this question, but gave him valuable training. So he resolved to realise Enlightenment himself. When he did so, he was exhorted to teach other beings the truth he had found - rediscovered, as there have been previous Buddhas in earlier ages. He then spent the next forty -odd years teaching. This can be read in any biography of the Buddha.

What you may be referring to is that Enlightenment can only be realised by individuals through their own effort. It is not bestowed by an external influence.

Buddhism can't dictate satisfaction

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Buddhist's search is a search for ultimate happiness, freedom from suffering, and this can't be found within Samsara according to the teachings.


Despite knowing the difficulty of this, through his compassion, he then taught the path to Enlightenment which is The Buddha's Path.

[Musicology]

Buddah was searching for the truth. Jesus searched for nothing. He declared Himself to be the Truth. A big difference, yes ?

Buddah founded no religion. He founded, instead, a philosophy. A big difference, yes ? And Buddah (unlike the biblical Jesus) performed no miracles.

Buddah predicted nothing. Jesus did the opposite. The birth of Buddah was not anticipated in the world. But the birth of Jesus was widely prophesised/predicted. A big difference. Buddah fulfilled no prophecies. Jesus fulfilled thousands.

Etc.

The only conclusion we can arrive at by fairly considering these two different things is that Buddhism is a philosophy. While Christianity is a revelation, of true religion. Consistent with what came before. Again, a difference is that Buddhism has no atonement for human sins or a relationship with the Creator of the universe while Christianity does.

Regards