am I inter-religious? buddhist> CHristian

[Contarini]

If by “core” you mean something that all Buddhists do, by the very fact of having taken refuge

And that wasn’t what I meant. Given the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth, I don’t think that’s the best way to define the “core” of Buddhism, because as I understand it Buddhist practice needs to be seen as something that takes place over many lives.

Edwin

 

[AdrianP]

Book about Easter religions Hinduism and Budhism: People just dont realize how dangerous budhism and hinduism are, beisde giving ofrandes to deities that may amount for idolatry.
orthodoxphotos.com/readings/future/attractions.shtml

"
A War of dogma

Today christianity is taking the thrusts of a foe that is all but invisible to the faithful. And if it can, it will pierce to the heart before declaring its name. The enemy is Hinduism, and the war being waged is a war of dogma.

When Vedanta Societies were founded in this country, around the turn of the century, first efforts were directed to establishing that there was no real difference between Hinduism and Christianity. Not only was there no conflict, but a good Christian would be a better Christian by studying and practicing the Vedanta; he would understand the real Christianity.

In early lectures, the Swamis attempted to show that those ideas which seemed peculiar to Christianity — like the Logos and the Cross — really had their origin in India. And those ideas which seemed peculiar to Hinduism — like rebirth, transmigration of the soul and samadhi (or trance) were also to be found in Christian scripture — when it was properly interpreted.

This kind of bait caught many sincere but misguided Christians. The early push was against what might be called “sectarian” dogmas, and for a so-called scientific religion based on a comparative study of all religions. Primary stress was always on this: there is no such thing as difference. All is One. All differences are just on the surface; they are apparent or relative, not real. All this is clear from published lectures that were delivered in the early 1900’s. Today we are in great danger because this effort was so very successful.

Now common parlance has “dogma” a derisive term. But this scorn could not have originated with those who know that it refers to the most precious heritage of the Church. However, once the bad connotation became fixed, the timid, who never like to be associated with the unpopular, began to speak of “rigid dogma,” which is redundant but bespeaks disapproval. So the attitude was insidiously absorbed from “broad-minded” critics who either didn’t know that dogma states what Christianity is, or simply didn’t like what Christianity is all about.

The resulting predisposition of many Christians to back down when faced with the accusation of holding to dogma has given the Hindus no small measure of help. And aid from within had strategic advantages.

The incredible fact is that few see that the very power that would overturn Christian dogma is itself nothing but an opposing system of dogmas. The two cannot blend or “enrich” each other because they are wholly antithetical.

If Christians are persuaded to throw out (or what is tactically more clever) to alter their dogmas to suit the demand for a more up-to-date or “universal” Christianity, they have lost everything, because what is valued by Christians and by Hindus is immediately derived from their dogmas. And Hindu dogmas are a direct repudiation of Christian dogmas. This leads us to a staggering conclusion: What Christians believe to be evil, Hindus believe to be good, and conversely: What Hindus believe to be evil, Christians believe to be good.

The real struggle lies in this:** that the ultimate sin for the Christian, is the ultimate realization of good for the Hindu.** Christians have always acknowledged pride as the basic sin — the fountainhead of all sin. And Lucifer is the archetype when he says. “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will ascend above the clouds; I will be like the Most High.” On a lower level, it is pride that turns even man’s virtues into sins. But for the Hindu in general, and the Advaitin or Vedantan in particular, the only “sin” is not to believe in yourself and in Humanity as God Himself. In the words of Swami Vivekananda (who was the foremost modern advocate of Vedanta): “You do not yet understand India! We Indians are Man-worshippers after all. Our God is Man!” The doctrine of mukti or salvation consists in this: that “Man is to become Divine by realizing the Divine.”

From this one can see the dogmas of Hinduism and Christianity standing face to face, each defying the other on the nature of God, the nature of man and the purpose of human existence.

But when Christians accept the Hindu propaganda that there is no battle going on, that the differences between Christianity and Hinduism are only apparent and not real — then Hindu ideas are free to take over the souls of Christians, winning the battle without a struggle. And the end result of this battle is truly shocking; the corrupting power of Hinduism is immense. In my own case, with all of the basically sound training that I received at the convent, twenty years in Hinduism brought me to the very doors of the love of evil. You see, in India “God” is also worshipped as Evil, in the form of the goddess Kali. But about this I will speak in the next section, on Hindu practices.

This is the end in store when there is no more Christian dogma. I say this from personal experience, because I have worshipped Kali in India and in this country. And she who is satan is no joke.** If you give up the Living God, the throne is not going to remain empty**."

Chapters:
* The Three Monotheistic Religions
o Do We Have the Same God That Non-Christians Have? by Father Basile Sakkas
* Hinduism
o The Power of the Pagan gods
o Hinduism’s Assault Upon Christianity
o The Attractions of Hinduism
o A War of dogma
+ Hindu Places and Practices
+ Evangelizing the West
+ The Goal of Hinduism: The Universal Religion
o A Fakir’s “Miracle” and the Prayer of Jesus. By Archimandrite Nicholas Drobyazgin
* Other Eastern Religions
o Eastern Meditation Invades Christianity
o “Christian Yoga”
o “Christian Zen”
o Transcendental Meditation
o The “New Religious Consciousness”
o The Spirit of the Eastern Cults in the 1970’s
+ Hare Krishna in San Francisco.
+ Guru Maharajji at the Houston Astrodome
+ Tantric Yoga in the Mountains of New Mexico
+ Zen Training in Northern California
o The New “Spirituality” vs. Christianity

 

[Contarini]

This leads us to a staggering conclusion: What Christians believe to be evil, Hindus believe to be good, and conversely: What Hindus believe to be evil, Christians believe to be good.

The real struggle lies in this:** that the ultimate sin for the Christian, is the ultimate realization of good for the Hindu.** Christians have always acknowledged pride as the basic sin — the fountainhead of all sin. And Lucifer is the archetype when he says. “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will ascend above the clouds; I will be like the Most High.” On a lower level, it is pride that turns even man’s virtues into sins. But for the Hindu in general, and the Advaitin or Vedantan in particular, the only “sin” is not to believe in yourself and in Humanity as God Himself

You have posted all of this before. You did not, as far as I remember, respond to the arguments I made against the article last time. You just repeat it without bothering to back up its claims. That makes you a troll.

To repeat: Hindus do not think that pride is a virtue. There are many sins in Hinduism. Not believing in yourself is certainly not one of those sins. Exalting your own ego means (for advaitins) trapping yourself in your own false self, in the illusion that you are an autonomous individual rather than one with Brahman.

That’s Vivekenanda’s humanist restatement of Hinduism, packaged for export to the West. It’s not representative of Hinduism as a whole. (He’s responding to the then-common Western stereotype that Hinduism was a superstitious, priest-ridden religion that degraded human dignity.)

You see, in India “God” is also worshipped as Evil, in the form of the goddess Kali.

Untrue. Kali is not “Evil.”

Edwin

 

[GeorgeSword]

Book about Easter religions Hinduism and Budhism: People just dont realize how dangerous budhism and hinduism are, beisde giving ofrandes to deities that may amount for idolatry.
orthodoxphotos.com/readings/future/attractions.shtml

That’s kind of a misrepresentation of Buddhism. Buddhism doesn’t require giving offerings to any gods. It’s more or less an agnostic faith, but has been heavily synchronized with various regional pantheons.
I’m not sure about Kali being evil. Wikipedia lists her as a ‘devil’. She sure was evil on the Temple of Doom, though

 

[Contarini]

I’m not sure about Kali being evil.

Kali may or may not be evil. But she is not Evil. That is to say, she is not the personification of Evil and worshiped as such, which is what the article is claiming.

Edwin

 

[AdrianP]

Ok, does it entince people giving alms to deities, why would do that ?

 

[GeorgeSword]

Ok, does it entince people giving alms to deities, why would do that ?

Some forms of Buddhism do, but like I said, it’s very hard to define exactly what Buddhism is in many cases.

 

[rossum]

Ok, does it entince people giving alms to deities, why would do that ?

Buddhism encourages the giving of alms to all living beings. Since the gods are living beings then it is OK to give alms to gods and well as to give alms to monks, other humans and to feed animals.

Human and animal sacrifices to gods are forbidden of course.

rossum

 

[Daedelus76]

I guess I assumed that even there the forms of Buddhism where meditation was not in some sense at the “core” were relatively few–Pure Land maybe, Soka Gakkai, etc. But I admit that I don’t know a great deal…
Edwin

The most popular Buddhist schools or sects aren’t heavily focused on insight meditation, and instead focus of things like devotion, prayer, chanting, etc.

I’d like to hear more about what attracts you to Christianity. So far I know that you have a lot of problems with it, that you find both liberal Episcopalians and conservative Calvinists lacking, and that you admire Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But I still don’t have a good sense of what it is that makes you think Christianity might be true, and what specifically you find appealing about Catholicism and Orthodoxy in particular.

That would be a long story. I do think the resurrection account of Jesus isn’t as implausible as many modern skeptical people assume, though (there are big gaps in science and alot of epistemology skeptics use, scientism, itself rests on unprovable premises). Once you accept that, it does leave alot of questions in your mind. That’s how I got started. Alot of my own motivation is not wholely rational, too.

. But the fact is that he is deeply uncomfortable with the traditional Christian language of Jesus saving us from our sin.

I admit I myself am uncomfortable with the idea that mere belief in Jesus saves people from sin (and lack of belief conversely damns them). It’s not something I can easily resolve- I really, really doubt many non-Christians are going to find themselves in everlasting Hell, for instance. Alot of Christianity seems to negate self-improvement as a valid thing to do, for instance, and relies on the hierarchy of the church, the sacraments etc. As a Buddhist I had no problems doing yoga or qigong and saw benefits from that, yet many Christians will say these things are forbidden because they are somewhat magical in nature and non-Christian. Christianity has no easy way to relate to other religions (except the most ugly statements), which is its weakness, whereas Buddhism does.

It’s pretty hard for me not to see similarities between Mahayana and western Gnosticism, and when I hear Fr. Forrester use Gnostic-sounding language, that reinforces my impression.

Buddhism is rooted in gnosis (jnana), but doesn't negate faith.  It is not quite like the gnostic Christian sects that said what u did "in the flesh" didn't really matter, though.    Buddhism, especially mahayana, heavily emphasizes acquiring transcendental wisdom (prajnaparamita) as the tool to use in spiritual practice- it's something energetic, u acquire wisdom to turn it into compassionate activity towards the goal of liberating others from suffering.   So many, many things can potentially be "spiritual practice".

I’m really not sure there are parallels directly in Christianity, I think some of the Catholic/Orthodox thought is closer in this. I think Jesus admonition to be “the light of the world” are suggestive of this, there is something energetic going on, people can influence other people. Alot of people can go through life waiting on the outside world to change, “if only things were different”, and I’m reminded of Gandhi’s saying “Become the change you wish to see in the world”.

. Exalting your own ego means (for advaitins) trapping yourself in your own false self, in the illusion that you are an autonomous individual rather than one with Brahman.

Almost all religions seems to say the same thing here, you aren’t really a fully autonomous individual.

 

[Contarini]

I admit I myself am uncomfortable with the idea that mere belief in Jesus saves people from sin (and lack of belief conversely damns them).

I don’t believe that. Saving faith is not “mere belief,” and a “lack” of belief does not damn people. Persistence in sin and rejection of God’s grace damns people. Faith is opening ourselves up to God’s grace offered us in Jesus Christ. Without faith in Christ, I would say that a person has not yet been “saved.” But that doesn’t mean that such a person is going to hell. God is leading all people to salvation, and I do not believe that God damns people because of a lack of opportunity or even because of a sincere refusal to believe (as long as that refusal is not rooted primarily in pride or some other sinful attitude).

It’s not something I can easily resolve- I really, really doubt many non-Christians are going to find themselves in everlasting Hell, for instance.

I am not entirely certain that *anyone *is going to be damned, although it’s clearly a very real possibility for everyone.

Certainly I do not think that people who have followed the light they knew will be damned in the traditional sense. My speculation is that at death we all encounter Christ, and how we respond to Him depends on how we have responded to the truth as we knew it in life. In other words, those who have been faithful to what they knew will say “Oh! So it was you all the time!” For all I know, that could even happen to Richard Dawkins.

I am also open to some kind of doctrine of “limbo” as in Dante (the Catholic theologian Joseph DiNoia has come up with a version of this, and a Baptist theologian whose name I don’t remember has also formulated something similar from a different perspective!), although obviously it’s not as appealing. In the end I would say that I do not know and don’t need to know.

Alot of Christianity seems to negate self-improvement as a valid thing to do, for instance, and relies on the hierarchy of the church, the sacraments etc.

If by “self-improvement” you mean “totally on your own,” then sure. But most forms of Christianity see the struggle for sanctification, traditionally linked to some degree of ascetic practice, as central to the Christian life.

As a Buddhist I had no problems doing yoga or qigong and saw benefits from that, yet many Christians will say these things are forbidden because they are somewhat magical in nature and non-Christian.

Sure, but you can’t base things on what “many Christians” say. Many Christians are pretty clueless. I have done yoga myself, though I’ve not practiced for a while (I’d like to get back into it).

Christianity has no easy way to relate to other religions (except the most ugly statements), which is its weakness, whereas Buddhism does.

I wonder how much Christian reflection on this subject you have read. There’s quite a bit of it in recent decades. A good starting point would be Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium and the related passages in the Catechism. Ratzinger’s book Truth and Tolerance offers a conservative corrective to what he sees as some faulty interpretations of Vatican II on this point, as does the official Vatican document (probably written by Ratzinger) Dominus Iesus (both Lumen Gentium and Dominus Iesus are easily available online). On the more liberal side, there are folks like John Hick (Protestant) and Paul Knitter (Catholic). In between there is Rahner’s “anonymous Christianity” and the work of evangelical theologians such as John Sanders and Clark Pinnock. A good starting point on the Protestant side is the volume Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World.

All that being said, this is indeed a problem for Christians that Buddhists don’t face, if only because of the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth. It’s easy for Buddhists to find a “place” for practitioners of other religions while still saying that only Buddhist practice can actually get one the final stage of the journey to nirvana. But many Christians are struggling to articulate something similar–that in our view Jesus is the way to salvation and all salvation comes from and through Jesus, but that other religions contain much that is true and good and that God is working in the lives of everyone, whether they have heard of Jesus or not.

Buddhism is rooted in gnosis (jnana), but doesn't negate faith.  It is not quite like the gnostic Christian sects that said what u did "in the flesh" didn't really matter, though.

It’s not entirely clear that they thought this, though. Clearly Gnosticism as reported by orthodox Christians sounds like a kind of caricature of Buddhism. But it’s hard to be sure how much of the caricature is in the minds of the Gnostics and how much is in the minds of their orthodox opponents. The Gnostic texts I’ve read don’t entirely decide that question for me, but some of them, like the Gospel of Thomas (admittedly some would say that it’s not truly Gnostic–the definition is always fuzzy) and the Hymn of the Pearl, are powerful works that don’t entirely fit the picture one gets from Irenaeus and other Christian polemicists (even though as far as I can see these polemicists didn’t directly falsify the record–they just understandably focused on the negative and perhaps exaggerated it!).

Edwin

 

[Siddhartha]

All that being said, this is indeed a problem for Christians that Buddhists don’t face, if only because of the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth. It’s easy for Buddhists to find a “place” for practitioners of other religions while still saying that only Buddhist practice can actually get one the final stage of the journey to nirvana. But many Christians are struggling to articulate something similar–that in our view Jesus is the way to salvation and all salvation comes from and through Jesus, but that other religions contain much that is true and good and that God is working in the lives of everyone, whether they have heard of Jesus or not.

In the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, one need not be a formal member of a Christian Church, nor even a formal “believer” in Jesus Christ in this life, in order to be saved. So someone like Gandhi may indeed be saved, according to Catholic-Orthodox tradition. And, if Gandhi is saved, then that salvation would be the direct result of the work of Christ. But such salvation doesn’t require formal membership in Christianity, or formal believe in Christian doctrines.

There is also a definite allowance, or even encouragement, of hoping for the salvation of all human beings, in the Catholic-Orthodox tradition, but especially in the Orthodox tradition. The hoping for the salvation of all, is to be distinguished from the categorical certainty of the salvation of all, which is dependent upon individuals’ free-wills. But if God is Absolute Love, then whose free-will can – for all eternity – resist such Love? (I ask that as a question, not as a conclusion.)

 

[GeorgeSword]

Indeed, we should hope for the salvation of all. But that is no excuse for us not to follow Christ in teaching people of Him, and the salvation He brings, nor is it an excuse to believe all are saved. The primary teaching of the Church on the salvation of non-Christians is called ‘Invincible Ignorance’, by which those ignorant of Christ, but with a great desire to follow God, may be saved by His mercy.

 

[Siddhartha]

Indeed, we should hope for the salvation of all. But that is no excuse for us not to follow Christ in teaching people of Him, and the salvation He brings, nor is it an excuse to believe all are saved.

From a Catholic-Orthodox perspective, it could be argued that the only way all would be saved, is for the gospel to be spread.

 

[Siddhartha]

Converting to Buddhism wasn’t painless. “When you grow up in the Bible Belt, that teaching is very strong. It’s almost better to be a drug addict, an adulterer or a scalawag than to say, ‘I’m a Buddhist.’”

His marriage and two children also were issues. Dyer’s wife, Sidney, and the children are members of an evangelical Christian church. “It challenged us to the point that it made us wonder if we could make it,” she said.

Sidney Dyer’s belief that “God plans it all” helped. “I actually thank God in a way because I wouldn’t have gone as deep in my own faith if I hadn’t been challenged,” she said. Instead of rejecting the suffering that her husband questioned, she embraced it: “I think each individual’s suffering is personally designed for that individual to lead him to God.”

She describes her husband as “a deeply spiritual person” and holds out hope that his spiritual journey will lead him back to Christianity.

Dyer, who says he still appreciates the teachings of the Bible, says he doesn’t think of Buddhism as a rejection of Christianity.

But the happiness he once sought as a Christian no longer seems beyond his grasp. “Without a doubt, without equivocation, there has been a continuous, constant diminishment of suffering and awakening of peace and happiness,” he said.

Practicing Buddhist meditation (or even converting to Buddhism, as seen in the above story) need not be seen as rejecting Christianity. (And for those who were formerly Buddhist and become Christian, converting to Christianity need not be seen as rejecting Buddhism.)

 

[GeorgeSword]

From a Catholic-Orthodox perspective, it could be argued that the only way all would be saved, is for the gospel to be spread.

The Church teaches that those who do not know of Christ but wish to follow God, or those who have rejected Him out of total (invincible) ignorance may be saved. It really cannot be argued otherwise without deviating from the teachings of the Church.

 

[Siddhartha]

The Church teaches that those who do not know of Christ but wish to follow God, or those who have rejected Him out of total (invincible) ignorance may be saved. It really cannot be argued otherwise without deviating from the teachings of the Church.

I’ve heard of “invincible ignorance”, but what is “total (invincible) ignorance”?

 

[GeorgeSword]

That would be an unneeded rephrasing of the same thing
What I mean to say is is that in order to be Invincibly Ignorant, one needs to be totally ignorant, and not ignorant out of desire or rejection. God can see all paths life might take, and so perhaps if things have gone differently someone might have followed Him, but in life they did not have the chance to. In that case, and others, we entrust them to His mercy.

 

[Siddhartha]

I
All that being said, this is indeed a problem for Christians that Buddhists don’t face, if only because of the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth. It’s easy for Buddhists to find a “place” for practitioners of other religions while still saying that only Buddhist practice can actually get one the final stage of the journey to nirvana. But many Christians are struggling to articulate something similar–that in our view Jesus is the way to salvation and all salvation comes from and through Jesus, but that other religions contain much that is true and good and that God is working in the lives of everyone, whether they have heard of Jesus or not.

There might be a logico-emotional connection between belief in (1) a loving being who created the cosmos from nothing; and (2) each ‘person’ having only one ‘birth-life-death’ cycle.

The Dalai Lama was asking various Christian thinkers about the place rebirth or reincarnation might have played, or might play, within Christianity. He hasn’t been able to ask the Pope about this yet, but he did ask someone equally relevant, Bede Griffiths. According to the Dalai Lama, Bede Griffiths said that “from the Christian point of view, a belief in rebirth would undermine the force in one’s faith and practice. When you accept that this life, your individual existence, has been directly created and is like a direct gift from the Creator, it immediately creates a very special bond between you as an individual creature and the Creator. There’s a direct personal connection that gives you a sense of closeness and an intimacy with your Creator. A belief in rebirth would undermine that special relationship with the Creator.” [His Holiness the Dalai Lama. *The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus. Boston: Wisdom Publications. 1996. 59.]

That’s one way to understand why Christianity and rebirth might not fit. (Though I do think that there is no inherent contradiction between an idea of a loving, all-powerful entity, on the one hand, and rebirth/reincarnation, on the other. Hasidic Jews believe in a version of reincarnation, and they also believe in the Jewish ideas of deity.)

 

[GeorgeSword]

Practicing Buddhist meditation (or even converting to Buddhism, as seen in the above story) need not be seen as rejecting Christianity. (And for those who were formerly Buddhist and become Christian, converting to Christianity need not be seen as rejecting Buddhism.)

I don’t understand how Buddhist meditation can really work within Christianity. I will admit, I’m not 100% familiar with it, but the goal is to reach enlightenment, isn’t it? How does that fit within a Christian framework? For us, prayer and meditation is generally done to reach a closer relationship with God.
That said, ancient Christians, such as the Desert Fathers, would probably be of interest, as would ‘The Cloud of Knowing’. The Desert Fathers were known for their (somewhat similar to Buddhist) meditation, and the Cloud of Knowing is a medieval guide to means of Christian meditation, if a bit of a heavy read.

 

[Siddhartha]

I don’t understand how Buddhist meditation can really work within Christianity. I will admit, I’m not 100% familiar with it, but the goal is to reach enlightenment, isn’t it? How does that fit within a Christian framework? For us, prayer and meditation is generally done to reach a closer relationship with God.
That said, ancient Christians, such as the Desert Fathers, would probably be of interest, as would ‘The Cloud of Knowing’. The Desert Fathers were known for their (somewhat similar to Buddhist) meditation, and the Cloud of Knowing is a medieval guide to means of Christian meditation, if a bit of a heavy read.

Buddhist meditation comes in many different forms. A basic form is simply breath meditation, where one practices awareness of the breath, perhaps aided by repeating a word silently (say, “Buddha”, or “Dharma”). This sort of meditation isn’t usually taught in Christian circles these days, but a Christian could gain a lot by utilizing this form of meditation, replacing “Buddha” with “Jesus”, or replacing “Dharma” with “Amen”. (I think Centering Prayer operates on a similar principle.)

The ultimate goal of Buddhist meditation is, of course, nirvana or nibbana. But Buddhists have lots of goals, besides the ultimate goal. Not all Buddhists are aiming for nirvana in this particular life, and yet they still practice Buddhist meditations, because these meditations can take you to nirvana, but they can also take you to other levels of realization. Likewise, Christians can practice Christian-oriented breath meditation with the purpose of becoming closer to Christ.