Buddhism and Christianity?

[annem]

‘scientific types’ will lean towards Buddhism.
*

*

If Buddhism were intellectually compelling, at the very least the first and major plank upon which Buddhism is built would not be so clearly false.

The problem with life is not suffering. Buddha was wrong. That one thousand people died of famine in the Ukraine would be great suffering, great horror, but it is not the central problem of life.

On the other hand, that one thousand people in the Ukraine were forced to starve to death by the Communists, simply because Stalin wanted to exterminate any peasant with one coin more than another, that the Communists beat, shot to death some twelve million human beings, that they buried alive one priest and crucified another (oh yes they certainly did) proves that sorrow is not the problem. ’

Evil is the problem.

Buddhism says evil is mere 'ignorance;. This has been the Buddhist argument for 2,500 years of human oppression, murder, and sheer evil. Calling such things as the mass murder of 6 million Jews and the 100,000 million slaughtered by Communists so recently is so wrong that I argue it disproves Buddhism. Moreover, as an intellectual argument it is silly.

These are clear proofs Buddhism is wrong and Christianity is true.

 

[annem]

openmind77

• scientific types’ will lean towards Buddhism.

*

Science was created by the European west because of Christianity. This is a very old argument, no point in going into it.

But why wasn’t science created by the Chinese? In comparison to Europe, China has a stable civilization, at times for century after century, and China has had a long history of inventive people. Think of the inventions that were first credited to the Chinese.

And then ask yourself, why was it that the west took those inventions and built upon them, only the west, rarely China? Why was it that the Chinese were amazed by clocks which were brought to them by Europeans like Ricci, even though clocks were invented centuries earlier in China - and then promptly forgotten, because all the clocks were ordered destroyed?

Why did the Europeans find the Chinese farmer using more of less the same implements that had been used in China for thousands of. years? In short, why was China cripplingly behind the west?

Buddhism scorns knowledge and intellectual inquiry, and always has. Here is a quote from Thich Nhat Hanh: “In Buddhism, knowledge can be seen as an obstacle”

So it is illogical to imagine scientific types drawn to Buddhism.

 

[Randolph]

Buddhism scorns knowledge and intellectual inquiry, and always has. Here is a quote fnrom Thich Nhat Hanh: “In Buddhism, knowledge can be seen as an obstacle”

You are correct. The human mind is the problem in Buddhism. The whole point of meditation in Buddhism is to empty the mind. It’s precisely what is in the mind that attaches one to the very things that cause human sufferings. So emptying the mind is part of the process of detachment. That is why you don’t see Buddhist colleges/universities or institutions that advance or foster the development of human knowledge such as science or critical thinking.

I disagree with you with the Chinese and European comparisons about science. Science is greatly advanced and developed in Asia today. Any actual visits to Japan, China, South Korea, Kong Hong, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, etc… would prove this point. Science and medicines were undoubtedly very advanced in China thousands of years before Europe. Building structures, study of human anatomy, dietary science/medicines, weaponry, philosophy, educational institutions, etc… are among many examples. Europe did however outpace and outperform China in science and medicines since the scientific revolution. It’s a mistake to equate Asia/China to just Buddhism. Asia is very diverse—although the influence of Buddhism is enormous.

 

[Matthew25]

I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I have learned much from Buddhism. Buddhism can be more of a philosophy that religion. Buddha taught nothing of “God”. He basically believed, coming out of Hinduism, that we will never understand “God” so why discuss. If you have read the eight fold path how could that not inspire to lead a moral life. Jesus often talked about “staying awake” or “wake up”. Buddha means “the awaken one”. Blessings on your journey.

 

[Randolph]

I am a follower of Jesus Christ and I have learned much from Buddhism. Buddhism can be more of a philosophy that religion. Buddha taught nothing of “God”. He basically believed, coming out of Hinduism, that we will never understand “God” so why discuss. If you have read the eight fold path how could that not inspire to lead a moral life. Jesus often talked about “staying awake” or “wake up”. Buddha means “the awaken one”. Blessings on your journey.

I agree. It was God who created the world and deemed it was good. It was God Himself who wanted to have a loving relationship with us and us with each other. It was also God who allowed us to have dominion and to be good stewards over the things He created. As God’s children, we are to attach ourselves to God and to carry His across. But in Buddhism, the opposite is advocated. It believes the world, God’s creation, is the problem. Attachment to it is the source of human sufferings. This includes our families, grandparents, parents, children, siblings, grandchildren, etc… So detachment is the answer. Buddhism’s denial of the existence of evil is preposterous. Its reduction of evil to the level of ignorance is astonishing. Could you fathom the thoughts that monsters in history such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc… were just ignorant—not evil?? These things not only deny God’s creation, but also deny God Himself.

 

[annem]

If you have read the eight fold path how could that not inspire to lead a moral life. Jesus often talked about “staying awake” or “wake up”. Buddha means “the awaken one”. Blessings on your journey.
*

*

Except that Buddhism rejects absolute good and evil and considers them illusions.

This is not some small point. Various Buddhists have argued that those who are enlightened are above such things as good and evil, and are not constrained by morality. . Zen Master Dogen explained that, as Mahayana Bodhisattva, killing was justified, since killing was killing the False. If your heart was filled with compassion, you could kill without compunction.

I can list some books on the subject if you are interested.

 

[Randolph]

This is not some small point. Various Buddhists have argued that those who are enlightened are above such things as good and evil, and are not constrained by morality. . Zen Master Dogen explained that, as Mahayana Bodhisattva, killing was justified, since killing was killing the False. If your heart was filled with compassion, you could kill without compunction.

To amplify your point, it was recently on this Forum that I asked a Japanese Catholic about the high rate of suicide in Japan. His response:

”… The other reason may be the useless Buddhist denominations that I believe are sending vain messages to people that most can be saved and go to their heaven after a couple of hours of a funeral service. Thus, people don’t believe they can go to hell by killing themselves, and instead can see dying as relief.”

 

[Peaceable]

Not true about Buddhism and learning. Nalanda was one of the oldest Universities in the world, dating from 400 ad. Chinese scholars studied there. They taught buddhism but also grammar logic and medicine. It lost royal support with the decline i. Buddhism in 700 or so but was definitively ransacked and destroyed in 1200. Or so Wikipedia says.

 

[anon99031074]

Various Buddhists, including famous Zen-Buddhists have said a few unwise things. That does not mean this represents the teachings of the Buddha. Case in point, about killing with compassion:

At the time of the Buddha, a man who worked as an executioner asked a monk how he could practice the teaching & discipline of the Buddha (known as the Dhamma) – which includes taking a precept against killing – given the work he had. The monk told him that if he had compassion with the victims it would be ok. It was NOT ok. When the Buddha heard of this, the monk was excluded from the order for life, and a new law was put into the Vinaya (the «code of canon law» for Buddhist monks) which prohibited them from condoning any killing.

The Buddha also stated that if people believed morality was illusory, and lived in accordance with that view, it would lead to rebirth in a hellish realm. Morality is not arbitrary in Buddhism. It is rational, and based on compassion with sentient beings who fear death and suffering. It is not the same as karma. An act can be unethical and yet not produce bad karma.

Also, this view of killing is not representative of the Mahayana, which has a precept against the destruction of life like all forms of Buddhism do. Even if Dogen speculated that a Boddhisattva could kill if it was justified, that would be akin to a Christian saying that God can kill, since a Boddhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism is above even the greatest of gods. But Dogen was not a Buddha, but a prominent teacher in the Zen tradition.

Also, were I to start quoting random Catholic’s postings on diverse forums, and use that as arguments against the whole religion, I might be able to quote a lot of strange stuff… Some dude in japan thinks Buddhism is to blame for the high suicide rate. Hardly a scientific argument, and especially weak considering that other countries with large Buddhist populations do not suffer from the same problem. Nor du universalist Christian Churces seem to be suffering from higher suicide rates.

 

[anon99031074]

I have to say, I think this is a bit unfair. Imagine if Buddhists started digging up quotes by Catholics througout the 2000-year history of the Catholic Church. Even quotes from Catholic saints, and then used these statements as evidence that the morality of Jesus was deficient. They would quickly be told about the fallibility of these saints, and that none of them speak officially for Christianity or Jesus.

The Buddha never condoned any killing. In fact, when asked directly if there was any killing he would condone, he replied that he only condoned killing one’s anger.

Nor did the Buddha teach that any war is just. No Buddhist will have to wake up in the middle of the night, screaming and soaked in their own sweat from nightmares due to having participated in a war the Buddha told them was just, or could be considered just based on principles he taught.

Admittedly, any Buddhist worldview differs from a Catholic a worldview. And morality isn’t based on the dictates of a God in Buddhism. But morality isn’t solely based on the written commandments of God in Catholicism either, or any appeal to so called natural law would have to be rejected. Catholics do seem to think that it is possible to have moral discussions without an appeal to written revelation, and Buddhists agree.

It is also true that many forms of Buddhism teach that appearances are illusory in the sense that they are not what they appear to be. They appear to be solid, but they are not. They appear to subsist through their own power, but they do not. They appear to have an essence that makes them what they are, but they do not.

We can compare this to Christianity which teaches that the only being in existence which truly exists by himself is God. All other beings are contingent on God and can only exist because God wills it. Were he to withdraw his creative and sustaining power they would go back to the nothingness from which they emerged at his command. This means God is real in a sense that his creation is not. It has the potential both to exist and not to exist, while God must exist. He is the great «I am». However, it would be a grave mistake to interpret this as meaning that murder is ok, because the being that is killed is contingent anyway…

 

[annem]

[Peaceable
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) annem

13h

Not true about Buddhism and learning

Sorry, but you are incorrect. There are some 2,500 years of Buddhist literature that state that intellectual inquiry is illusion, that it is something that could not lead to enlightenment. The most famous Buddhist today Thich Nhat Hanh has restated this belief many times, as in: “In Buddhism, knowledge can be seen as an obstacle.”

This attitude is so ingrained, Hanh once incorrectly ascribed it to Christians, when he wrote “Like their Buddhist counterparts, Christian practitioners do not engage in excessive intellectual or analytical scrutiny of scriptures”.

Of course, there were scientists who were Buddhists, just as there are sects of Buddhism more welcoming to intellectual inquiry, but the overall position of Buddhism is to reject deep study of intellectual matters because, in their view, it does not lead to enlightenment.

That Buddhism was part of the reason the China lagged behind Europe by the 16th century is is a very old theory., not just a random opinion I thought up. I can name some books on the subject for you.

 

[openmind77]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. There are some 2,500 years of Buddhist literature that state that intellectual inquiry is illusion,…

In that case why is Tibetan Buddhism famous for its debates: Tibetan Buddhist Debate | Asia Society and

Like I said, you really have to be an intellectual to understand and appreciate Buddhism. Christianity is best for average people

 

[annem]

Shunyata

5h

Various Buddhists, including famous Zen-Buddhists have said a few unwise things. That does not mean this represents the teachings of the Buddha. Case in point, about killing with compassion:

I should have explained myself more clearly. Yes, Buddhism has always promoted compassion. Yes, there are teachings that say that killing is wrong. Yes, every large group of people will include idiots and monsters.

Nevertheless, it is deeply troubling to find how recently and how thoroughly Buddhism was used to hurt people. Many, many scholars have written about the connection between Zen Buddhism and the mass murders during World War II.

For example, according to the book “Zen War Stories” Zen leaders used the Buddhist doctrine of the no-self, coupled with the belief in the oneness of life and death, to encourage soldiers to kill mercilessly,. The result was such horrors in China of the Japanese trying vivisection without anesthesia, not to mention burying civilians alive. This is within the living memory of people today.

morality isn’t solely based on the written commandments of God in Catholicism either, or any appeal to so called natural law would have to be rejected

According to such theologians as Thomas Aquinas, natural law is embedded in the hearts of all of God’s creatures, and it helps us to discern right from wrong. It’s why we expect to see flashes of God’s truth everywhere, and certainly we see some of that in Buddhism.

 

[LovelyLadybug]

Christianity is best for average people

Christianity is best for everybody, including intellectuals. God Bless!!!

 

[LovelyLadybug]

Thank you for summarizing that up so well!!! Buddhism, despite good moral teachings, IS a false religion and it, like all other false religions, has got to go. This way, Christianity, especially Catholicism, can flourish!!! God bless!!!

 

[LovelyLadybug]

Christianity and Catholicism have similar moral teachings, but their beliefs are so very different. Many confused Catholics & other Christians combine Catholicism and Buddhism. Some Catholic bookstores (sadly) have books on Zen Buddhism, Christian Buddhism, and even “Zen Catholicism!!” This is unfortunate and sad. We must pray for those confused Christians who self-identify as Buddhists. God wants everyone to practice Catholocism since it is the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church. . . . As another user pointed out, Buddhism flatly contradicts The Catholic Creed. . . . Jesus is God. Buddha is not. Enough said. I hope this helps!!! God
bless!!!

 

[anon99031074]

There are some 2,500 years of Buddhist literature that state that intellectual inquiry is illusion, that it is something that could not lead to enlightenment.

Intellectual reason alone is insufficient to lead to enlightenment and it is fallible, but can be useful. In more than 5000 pages of early Buddhis texts, the Buddha nowhere says intellectual inquiry is an illusion. He reasons with people all the time.

the overall position of Buddhism is to reject deep study of intellectual matters because, in their view, it does not lead to enlightenment.

There are a few doctrines that are common to all of Buddhism. The four noble truths. The noble eightfold path. Three characteristics. Anti-intellectualism isn’t one of them. The geshes of Tibet, whom Ippolito Desideri debated, would have been very surprised to hear such claims.

Nevertheless, it is deeply troubling to find how recently and how thoroughly Buddhism was used to hurt people. Many, many scholars have written about the connection between Zen Buddhism and the mass murders during World War II.

Distorted elements of Buddhism were abused in WW2. Buddhism being non-violent cannot be used to make war. But elements of it can be misinterpreted and abused. The Buddha very clearly and unambiguosly condemned the destruction of sentient life, and afflicting pain on others.

The result was such horrors in China of the Japanese trying vivisection without anesthesia, not to mention burying civilians alive. This is within the living memory of people today.

This is terrible example of what we have already discussed, how a little “knowledge” can be dangerous. If someone thinks anatta/no-self somehow means that it is ok to kill because there is really nobody there to kill, they have understood absolutely NOTHING about what it means.

When it comes to vivisection, I need only mention Descartes, and the torture of alleged “soulless animals” by him and his deluded disciples. However, I am not about to blame Jesus for such horrors. Nor do I blame Jesus for witch hunts, the burning of people alive, torture commited by inquisitions, and other cruelties Christians have commited. Jesus never taught them to act like that.

It’s why we expect to see flashes of God’s truth everywhere, and certainly we see some of that in Buddhism.

We may certainly agree that humans have a natural ability to recognise moral truths, though we may differ as to why this is so. I simply bring it up against the argument that Buddhist morals are arbitrary if they aren’t based on revelation.

 

[anon99031074]

The mention of Tibet reminds me of a question I always wondered about: In 1905, in Tibet, the Dalai Lama poisoned to death Father Burdin at a meal he had invited him to.

You don’t feel even the slightest need to present at least some evidence for this radical claim, before you denigrate someone you know others look up to? Do you enjoy trolling Buddhists, or do you perhaps think people will be inclined to listen to your faith claims if you try to denigrate their religion as much as possible? I may have made a mistake in taking you seriously.

Christianity is best for everybody, including intellectuals. God Bless!!!

I think that if a religion helps make someone be more kind, loving and patient it has done a lot of good. Sadly, many religions, my own included, fails to do this in many cases. If you pray, meditate, go to church or visit a temple, read your scriptures, partake in your sacraments, etc., but you cannot even be bothered to treat your fellow beings with some kindness, then it is all a complete waste (paraphrased from Paul)

 

[LovelyLadybug]

Sadly, many religions, my own included, fails to do this in many cases.

Are you Catholic or Buddhist?

 

[anon99031074]

Are you Catholic or Buddhist?

The answer to that question is somewhat complicated. I practice the Dhamma of the Buddha to the best of my ability, and my outlook on life is decidedly and unambigously Buddhist, but I have not resigned from the Catholic Church, though it would be fair to say I no longer believe in a lot of it’s claims. However, culturally (and karmically, I guess) I am very much still connected to it, for instance through friends and family. Leaving would cause members of my extended family grief, and it would serve no useful purpose. So culturally Catholic, religiously and philosophically Buddhist? Something like that, if I need to use labels at all