Buddhism: A Dangerous Wave From the East?

[jedimasterham]

Don’t associate with lowly qualities.
Don’t consort with heedlessness.
Don’t associate with wrong views.
Don’t busy yourself with the world.

If you truly understand this, then you must be a buddha. This is an important bit you just quoted.

 

[Contarini]

I can say that I know christianity well, considering the fact that I spent 11 years in Catholic private schools. I’m thankful that I got a good education from it in intellect and in morals. Since i’ve read the bible twice, and got an A in religion class, I do have a a very good understanding of christian faith.

Well, I’m afraid we have to judge by your posts and not by your claims. And your posts show little understanding or logic. Granted, most converts are like this when speaking of their previous tradition–and of course they always insist that they understand their former tradition very well, even as the evidence all points in the opposite direction!

If you really believed in thinking for yourself, you would not unthinkingly accept what James Cameron tells you just because it suits your prejudices.

Edwin

 

[Ahimsa]

Don’t associate with lowly qualities.
Don’t consort with heedlessness.
Don’t associate with wrong views.
Don’t busy yourself with the world.

Get up! Don’t be heedless.
Live the Dhamma * well.
One who lives the Dhamma
sleeps with ease
in this world & the next.

Live the Dhamma well.
Don’t live it badly.
One who lives the Dhamma
sleeps with ease
in this world & the next.

– Dhammapada 168-169*

 

[jedimasterham]

Well, I’m afraid we have to judge by your posts and not by your claims. And your posts show little understanding or logic. Granted, most converts are like this when speaking of their previous tradition–and of course they always insist that they understand their former tradition very well, even as the evidence all points in the opposite direction!

If you really believed in thinking for yourself, you would not unthinkingly accept what James Cameron tells you just because it suits your prejudices.

Edwin

In buddhist practice, you can be christian as well. Why would someone have to convert religions, unless they’re uncomfortable with themselves, or unless they need to be controlled. I know you’re upset with me because I have different ideas that you, but state exactly what problem or prejudice you have with what I have to say.

 

[Contarini]

In buddhist practice, you can be christian as well. Why would someone have to convert religions, unless they’re uncomfortable with themselves, or unless they need to be controlled. I know you’re upset with me because I have different ideas that you,.

No, I’m not. I’m mildly annoyed by your cavalier tone and your unthinking adoption of superficial notions floating around the popular culture. I posted a response to you in the “three reasons” thread (post 618).

Edwin

 

[Bennie_P]

In buddhist practice, you can be christian as well. Why would someone have to convert religions, unless they’re uncomfortable with themselves, or unless they need to be controlled. I know you’re upset with me because I have different ideas that you, but state exactly what problem or prejudice you have with what I have to say.

But you cannot be a Christian if you claim to be a buddhist.

*the striking differences between the two men: “Buddha’s clear answer to this question was: ‘I am a man, not a god’*Christ’s clear answer was: 'I am both son of Man and Son of God.'Buddha said, 'Look not to me, look to my dharma [doctrine]'Christ said, ‘Come unto me.’ Buddha said, ‘Be ye lamps unto yourselves’;Christ said, ‘I am the light of the world.’”

"It is presently common to find Christ brought down to the level of “philosopher” or “great teacher,” just as Buddha is sometimes elevated to a state of divinity.

No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Luke 16:13, Matthew 6:24

You cannot serve God and mammon*. This is the direct application. The Chaldee word “Mammon” means money or riches. It is here personified as an idol.*-source; The People’s New Testament.

A train is fully free only if it is on the correct path(tracks).

 

[Contarini]

But you cannot be a Christian if you claim to be a buddhist.

"…the striking differences between the two men: "Buddha’s clear answer to this question was: ‘I am a man, not a god’; Christ’s clear answer was: ‘I am both son of Man and Son of God.’ Buddha said, ‘Look not to me, look to my dharma [doctrine]’: Christ said, ‘Come unto me.’ Buddha said, ‘Be ye lamps unto yourselves’; Christ said, ‘I am the light of the world.’"

It is presently common to find Christ brought down to the level of “philosopher” or “great teacher,” just as Buddha is sometimes elevated to a state of divinity. "

No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Luke 16:13, Matthew 6:24

You are contradicting yourself. You say rightly that Buddha did not ask people to follow or worship him, and then you say that someone can’t follow two masters, implying that Buddha purports to be the same kind of being as Jesus.

Certainly a Christian cannot be a Buddhist in a religious sense–i.e., calling on Amidabha Buddha for salvation. But I see no reason why a Christian could not incorporate aspects of Buddhist philosophy, just as early Christians did with Greek philosophy. In fact many Christians have done this. There are Catholic priests who have “dharma transmission” from Zen Buddhist lineages. You can rail against this all you like, but that doesn’t prove it to be wrong Of course there are always dangers. It will no doubt take us centuries to work out how to relate to the great Eastern traditions. But cavalierly dismissing them as thoroughly evil is not an option.

Edwin

 

[Bennie_P]

You are contradicting yourself. You say rightly that Buddha did not ask people to follow or worship him, and then you say that someone can’t follow two masters, implying that Buddha purports to be the same kind of being as Jesus.

Certainly a Christian cannot be a Buddhist in a religious sense–i.e., calling on Amidabha Buddha for salvation. But I see no reason why a Christian could not incorporate aspects of Buddhist philosophy, just as early Christians did with Greek philosophy. In fact many Christians have done this. There are Catholic priests who have “dharma transmission” from Zen Buddhist lineages. You can rail against this all you like, but that doesn’t prove it to be wrong Of course there are always dangers. It will no doubt take us centuries to work out how to relate to the great Eastern traditions. But cavalierly dismissing them as thoroughly evil is not an option.

Edwin

If you follow Buddha’s teachings then you follow your own path which opposes Chirst call to follow him. Either Christ/God is your master, or yourself.
There have been many Catholics in error, being a priest doesn’t make you infallable. I have not called anyone evil, but there is grave danger in following a spiritual path that teaches you to look toward yourself for your illumination, even if you call it a philosophy.

Buddha said, ‘Be ye lamps unto yourselves’;

Christ said, ‘I am the light of the world.’"

 

[Ahimsa]

But you cannot be a Christian if you claim to be a buddhist.

That seems to be the predominant view among most Christians. Whether it’s true or not, is another story.

I’m sure many Jews believe that you cannot worship the Jewish Deity if you claim to also worship Jesus as Divine. And, yet, I doubt many Christians would accede to such a restriction.

 

[Contarini]

If you follow Buddha’s teachings then you follow your own path which opposes Chirst call to follow him. Either Christ/God is your master, or yourself.

No, I don’t think it’s that simple. Buddha had never heard of Christ. Christ was not yet born. Buddha was telling people that they should strive for virtue and self-control and compassion and peace of mind rather than relying on the rituals of Vedic/Brahmanic religion. Buddha was not telling people to trust themselves rather than Christ–he was telling people to trust themselves rather than trust the rituals of the Brahmins. Just as there is one sense in which this could be seen as a false move, inasmuch as it rejected the concept of divine grace in principle, so from another perspective (ironically, from a sterner and more “exclusivist” Christian perspective) one could argue that this was exactly the right advice. Salvation indeed did not come from Vedic rituals. And while Buddha’s path is not the path of ultimate salvation, it may well have value for the development of virtue and peace of mind.

Look at the actual Buddhist “Eightfold Path.” What do you see incompatible with Christianity there?

Edwin

 

[Rocky]

Of course there are always dangers. It will no doubt take us centuries to work out how to relate to the great Eastern traditions. But cavalierly dismissing them as thoroughly evil is not an option.

Edwin

Hear! Hear!

 

[Ahimsa]

If you follow Buddha’s teachings then you follow your own path which opposes Chirst call to follow him. Either Christ/God is your master, or yourself.

Buddha said, ‘Be ye lamps unto yourselves’;

I’m afraid you’re misunderstanding what the Buddha is saying here. Here is a fuller

(“http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.013.than.html#island”):

Therefore, Ananda, each of you should remain with your self as an island, your self as your refuge, without anything else as a refuge. Remain with the Dhamma as an island, the Dhamma as your refuge, without anything else as a refuge.

The Buddha goes on to explain what is meant by “your self as an island”: it means that one should understand your ‘self’ (body and mind) in the light of Dhamma (or Truth). It does not mean that your ‘self’ is the ultimate source of Truth, or the creator of its own independent version of Truth. It does mean that the realization of Truth, is dependent upon knowing the true nature of your own body and mind, and the cosmos in general.

Buddhists take the Three-Fold Refuge: Refuge in the Buddha, Refuge in the Dhamma, and Refuge in the Sangha (Community). Buddhists don’t take Refuge in the ‘self’.

 

[Bennie_P]

That seems to be the predominant view among most Christians. Whether it’s true or not, is another story.

I’m sure many Jews believe that you cannot worship the Jewish Deity if you claim to also worship Jesus as Divine. And, yet, I doubt many Christians would accede to such a restriction.

You know the true danger of Buddhism does not come from Buddhist, but from Westerners who pick and choose parts of Buddhism, then claim to be Buddhist, usually because of restrictions they seem to see with Judea-Christian culture that usually is in conflict with thier particular lifestyle or, thier need to think they are in control.

Buddhism isn’t a religion that seeks converts, thus they have no need to seek out others to defend themselves or beliefs.

3, 15 f.).*1 P *

 

[Ahimsa]

You know the true danger of Buddhism does not come from Buddhist, but from Westerners who pick and choose parts of Buddhism, then claim to be Buddhist, usually because of restrictions they seem to see with Judea-Christian culture that usually is in conflict with thier particular lifestyle or, thier need to think they are in control.

You certainly won’t find any argument from me here.

 

[Bennie_P]

I’m afraid you’re misunderstanding what the Buddha is saying here. Here is a fuller

(“http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.013.than.html#island”):

The Buddha goes on to explain what is meant by “your self as an island”: it means that one should understand your ‘self’ (body and mind) in the light of Dhamma (or Truth). It does not mean that your ‘self’ is the ultimate source of Truth, or the creator of its own independent version of Truth. It does mean that the realization of Truth, is dependent upon knowing the true nature of your own body and mind, and the cosmos in general.

Buddhists take the Three-Fold Refuge: Refuge in the Buddha, Refuge in the Dhamma, and Refuge in the Sangha (Community). Buddhists don’t take Refuge in the ‘self’.

Your translation, if it is a translation, comes fromThanissaro Bhikkhu (Geoffrey DeGraff) (1949 - ) who is an AmericanBuddhist, which for me makes it suspect. You can’t trust those Quiet Americans, just ask Graham Green.

PAX

 

[Greg27]

 As a Buddhist, I constantly am analyzing the validity of what I'm learning, through debate, logic, and experience.

I think as a Christian I do exactly the same thing in my own faith. I agree up to a point with you that the ‘dogmatic’ mindset can be unhealthy, but the core truths of Christianity are meant not just to be believed but also directly experienced, through participation in the sacraments, good moral life and conduct, and prayer (including the contemplative dimension). Fine examples in the Christian tradition of great mystics who were also engaged in debate and philosophy of religion include St John of the Cross and also Meister Eckhart, and others. In my view Buddhism is not superior to Christianity in this regard.

 

[Sixtus]

Bennie P wrote:

…the striking differences between the two men: "Buddha’s clear answer to this question was: ‘I am a man, not a god’; Christ’s clear answer was: ‘I am both son of Man and Son of God.’

AMEN

All that can be said has been!

 

[Ahimsa]

Bennie P wrote:

…the striking differences between the two men: "Buddha’s clear answer to this question was: ‘I am a man, not a god’; Christ’s clear answer was: ‘I am both son of Man and Son of God.’

I can’t seem to find a source for this quote (“I am a man, not a god”) supposedly from the Buddha.

In order to understand what the Buddha meant, you have to know what He meant when He said “man” and “god”. It’s quite different from the Abrahamic understanding of those terms.

Otherwise, comparing Buddha and Christ is like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[diligamus]

I can’t seem to find a source for this quote (“I am a man, not a god”) supposedly from the Buddha.

It might be a misquotation from the Dona Sutta?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

That seems to be the predominant view among most Christians. Whether it’s true or not, is another story.

Oh, it’s true, alright. As tolerant as some Buddists may be of syncretism, there is simply no place for it in Christianity. From “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one” to “I and the Father are one”, the continuity of that truth is unbroken.

I’m sure many Jews believe that you cannot worship the Jewish Deity if you claim to also worship Jesus as Divine. And, yet, I doubt many Christians would accede to such a restriction.

And they cannot both be right. The Christian position is essentially that the Jewish understanding of God is incomplete, not altogether erroneous. The error exists in the denial of the completeness of divine revelation in Jesus Christ.

If for one moment, Catholics thought that either Jews or Buddhists had the truth, they would cease to be Catholics, and become the other. But even that can distorted through a syncretistic lens, through assertions that each is true for the respective believer, because they believe it. Jesus Christ it not “A” way, truth, and life; He is “THE” way truth, and life, and any other view is simply not Christian.

Syncretism is a mortal danger, and any belief system that tolerates or promotes it is indeed a danger, as the Catholic Christian realizes.

Blessings,

Gerry