Buddhism and Christianity?

[annem]

rossum: As I said, you can find bad actions by the adherents of any religion.

But here is the problem for Buddhism with regard to slavery, war, famines, and all the other horrors that have plagued humanity: It wasn’t just a small portion of Buddhists doing nothing; it was the entire of Buddhists, all Buddhists, over all the entire span of Buddhism’s existence, doing nothing, or so little as to amount to nothing, to change society, or to aid the vast millions who needed help.

Earlier, you stated: Rossum: Things are not intrinsically sorrowful, they appear sorrowful to us because they change and we imagine them permanent.

This Buddhist dogma is why Buddhists have never improved society. People only appear to suffer, in a sense, because all is illusion and changing.

I submit that this basic, first, principle of Buddhism is wrong. The problem with life is not suffering. as Buddha claimed.

If one thousand people in the Ukraine die from famine that is a horror, and true suffering, but it is not the central problem of life. On the other hand, that one thousand people were murdered in the Ukraine by the Communists, that those people were forcibly starved to death simply to make Stalin look good, that the Communists beat, shot to death a multitude, 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 ‘ignorance’. That, too, disproves Buddhism.

 

[rossum]

It wasn’t just a small portion of Buddhists doing nothing; it was the entire of Buddhists, all Buddhists, over all the entire span of Buddhism’s existence, doing nothing,

Gross exaggeration. You have documented evidence of 90% of Buddhists (the great majority of whom were peasants) behaving like this. some well documented rulers, yes. The great majority of the population, no. Obviously excessive claims like this do you no credit.

This Buddhist dogma is why Buddhists have never improved society

Never? Read the story of King Ashoka after his conversion to Buddhism. He stopped all his wars of conquest. Again your exaggerated claims do not reflect well on you.

 

[new-kirishitan]

As a former Buddhist born and raised in a Buddhist society, I’d say while Buddhism has some good moral teachings, e.g. no killing (people or animals), no lying, no stealing, etc., it is still theologically wrong from a Christian view.

First of all, there are 3 branches of Buddhism, ranging from not quite idolatrous to extremely idolatrous. (Theravada < Mahayana < Tibetan) Theravada Buddhism ACKNOWLEDGES the existence of gods but they don’t tend to pray to them because believe gods are subject to death and reincarnation like us. Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism ACTIVELY pray to countless of gods.

Another thing is reincarnation. They believe that once you die, you are subject to this endless cycle of death and rebirth until you achieve nirvana. This also contradicts the Christian teaching.

Now here’s why I converted from Buddhism to Christianity. Since I grew up in a Mahayana environment, I can’t really dig deep into Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism, but I can tell you why I made my decision to convert to Christianity.

First, the fate of Buddha and Jesus are complete the opposite. Buddha lived until his 80s before he died. He was then cremated and his ashes are kept in many temples around the world. Solid proof that he died. In contrast, Jesus died on the cross but rose from the dead, and both his death and resurrection were witnessed by many people. Solid proof that he is alive. Therefore, why should I choose to follow a DEAD man’s false teachings instead of following someone who ROSE FROM THE DEAD? This is the biggest reason I chose Christ over Buddha.

Another reason I chose Christianity (Catholic Church in particular) over Buddhism is the hypocrisy and errors that I’ve found in Buddhism. In Buddhism, ALL CREATURES are theoretically equal. But ironically, Chinese Buddhism is full of inequality, demeaning of dignity, and bullying based on seniority. Monks can chew the nuns and lay believers but not the other way around. Lay believers are even prohibited from criticizing the monk’s wrongdoing. When nuns meet monks, they must to bow or prostrate, same thing between junior and senior monks. Abuse of junior monks is epidemic, especially child monks (7 is the minimum age to become a monk). Sleep deprivation, food deprivation, physical assault are extremely common.

Cultic practices of bodily mutilation in Chinese Buddhism is another reason I converted. Burning of body, arm, and/or fingers is mandated in the Mahayana scripture Brahmajāla Sūtra as an offering to Buddha. That’s why many monks chose to burn dots on their scalps with incense, and some will go far enough to burn off at an entire finger. Not only this is appalling, but it’s also a stark contrast to Jesus, whom gave HIS body and blood to us instead of asking for ours. So why should I reject someone who loves us so much to give himself to us, and go for someone who wants us to burn our bodies for him?

To sum this up,

1. Buddhism is a FALSE religion despite some of its good moral teachings.
2. Buddha is DEAD while Jesus is ALIVE.
3. Buddhism is full of contradictions and hypocrisy, and demands our flesh as offering, while Jesus gave himself to us for eternal salvation.

 

[openmind77]

Another thing is reincarnation. They believe that once you die, you are subject to this endless cycle of death and rebirth until you achieve nirvana. This also contradicts the Christian teaching.

I have a question (just out of curiosity) - if some day in the future, it was discovered that reincarnation was indeed true, would you convert back to Buddhism?

Burning of body, arm, and/or fingers is mandated in the Mahayana scripture Brahmajāla Sūtra as an offering to Buddha.

I would just like to point out that this practice seems to be unique to Chinese Buddhism. I have never heard of any such thing in Buddhism anywhere else in the world.

 

[annem]

openmind77. if some day in the future, it was discovered that reincarnation was indeed true, would you convert back to Buddhism?

Reincarnation would first have to overcome such obvious obstacles as population growth, and the no-self which is extinguished at death being sentenced when the no-self no longer exists. And the argument that karmic energy goes forward, all without a God or even some vague other mechanism to do so - impossible - makes no sense because there is no point when no-self is gone. It all piles fallacy onto confusion.

Speaking of truth, I would love to hear you defend Buddha’s first noble truth, that life is suffering. Do you agree with Buddha?

 

[openmind77]

Reincarnation would first have to overcome such obvious obstacles as population growth, and the no-self which is extinguished at death being sentenced when the no-self no longer exists.

From what I understand about reincarnation - there are about 60 billion souls existing on Earth out of which about seven billion are in incarnation. As the population of the Earth grows more of those 60 billion can be incarnated at the same time (new souls are not currently being created) - so there are sufficient number of souls for population growth, until the next pralaya (Apocalypse).

I personally don’t believe the part about ‘no self’ or 'no God", but I understand that point of view.

Speaking of truth, I would love to hear you defend Buddha’s first noble truth, that life is suffering. Do you agree with Buddha?

Life is certainly not all fun and games and eventually all happiness ends in suffering of one sort or another. All happiness is therefore temporary. I believe ‘Vale of Tears’ is a Christian phrase describing the world.

 

[rossum]

Reincarnation would first have to overcome such obvious obstacles as population growt

Have you included the number of currently existing gods, demons, animals etc. from the other possible rebirths as well as a human rebirth? Have the included the equivalent populations for other planets in the universe? Yes, the Ancient Indians realised that stars were very distant suns with their own planets and they believed that those planets had inhabitants – see the Sukhavati sutras for example. The Ancient Indian universe was a lot larger than the universe of the Bible, with a lot more inhabitants.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

I enjoyed reading your post. I will add two major differences between Catholicism and Buddhism.

Desire
In Buddhism the goal is to remove all desire. To have none.
In Catholicism the goal is to orient our desire towards the desire of God and thus giving right praise to God.

A being compared with Being Itself.
Buddha is a created being. Buddha is a being, before and after enlightenment.
God is not a being, God is being itself. God exists outside or our closed system on the natural plane if you like.
We are all beings, the flora and fauna are all beings. All created beings.

This is a huge point that can get lost in translation when attempting to understand God and who God is.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Considering the fact that animals are not moral or rational creatures, how can they have any hope of progressing? Wouldn’t they just be kinda stuck? How would they have any control over their karma? I’m genuinely curious about how Buddhists reconcile this.

 

[rossum]

Considering the fact that animals are not moral or rational creatures, how can they have any hope of progressing?

Animals are both moral and rational. Herd animals will act to protect each other, at some risk to themselves. Birds will give warning cries to alert other of a predator, which will draw attention to themselves while helping their neighbours.

While they do not have the range of responses open to humans, they do have a range of possible responses to choose between. Are we less moral and less rational because we do not have the range of possible responses open to gods or angels?

You might like to watch a chimp beating humans at an intelligence/memory test: here.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

Animals are both moral and rational. Herd animals will act to protect each other, at some risk to themselves. Birds will give warning cries to alert other of a predator, which will draw attention to themselves while helping their neighbours.

That’s not rational or moral, that’s instinct embedded into biological organisms over millions of years of evolution. Animals cannot rationalize, they do not understand what is morally correct and what is not, they don’t act in any moral way. I certainly don’t see any animals philosophers discussing ethics and questioning what is the best way to live.

While they do not have the range of responses open to humans, they do have a range of possible responses to choose between. Are we less moral and less rational because we do not have the range of possible responses open to gods or angels?

Humans (and angels) have free will and can choose how to act. Animals do not, they don’t even understand the concept of good and evil. They cannot act within any moral framework.

You might like to watch a chimp beating humans at an intelligence/memory test: here .

Crystallized Intelligence doesn’t have any bearing on rationality/morality.

 

[rossum]

That’s not rational or moral, that’s instinct

And you know this how? How many chimpanzees have you interviewed for your study and where is it published.

In science, personal opinion without supporting evidence is not worth a great deal.

 

[YHWH_Christ]

And you know this how? How many chimpanzees have you interviewed for your study and where is it published.

It’s not possible to interview an animal. They cannot tell us how they feel.

In science, personal opinion without supporting evidence is not worth a great deal.

I think you might want to take a step back and take a look at what you’ve been writing.

 

[Neithan]

Are we less moral and less rational because we do not have the range of possible responses open to gods or angels?

Not in kind, but perhaps in degree, which could be why we have a Redeemer, and angels do not: their moral decisions are not limited by animal appetites, like ours are (e.g. concupiscence and ire).

[Aside: What’s the difference between “gods” and “angels”?]

You might like to watch a chimp beating humans at an intelligence/memory test

Sensory memory is distinct from intelligence, at least in scholasticism. Since sensory data is material in the brain, animals are capable of the former but not the latter: they lack the recursive ability for abstraction. It is this recursive intellect that enables rational or moral reasoning and volition.

 

[Juansavage]

annem:

But if good and evil don’t exist, how can one learn not to be ignorant?

Good and evil both exist, as adjectives. They describe actions by men, gods and others.

How do you tell the difference?

“By their fruits shall you know them.”

Please explain why is it ignorant to kill someone if a human being has no real value and no immortal soul?

Humans, and other living things, do have value. Since there are no souls, that value does not reside in the soul – you are assuming something that Buddhism denies.

It is ignorant because killing someone is an unwise action which brings suffering on oneself.

I am practically quoting their booklets here.

I will need to see the references for that. Or perhaps I could quote the Massacre at Béziers. All religions (with the possible exception of Jainism) have bad parts in their history.

How can a Buddhist try to treat the symptom?

By treating the cause:

To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind –
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

– Dhammapada 14:5

The biggest non-true thing you say is that sin is ignorance. Many people are aware and even told many times what’s wrong and still do wrong.

 

[Juansavage]

First, I note your failure to produce any quote from Jesus relating to slavery. On this topic the Buddha condemned it; Jesus did not.

Second, it is easy to make a religion appear bad by looking at the worst behaviour of its followers. What about “Kill them all; God will know His own,” from the Massacre at Béziers? Christians started a civil war in America to preserve slavery. Christians have been killing other Christians over religious differences from the Wars of Religion to Northern Ireland in the 20th century.

All religions have less than perfect followers, Buddhism and Christianity included.

When did Buddhist countries end slavery?

 

[Juansavage]

rossum:

First, I note your failure to produce any quote from Jesus relating to slavery. On this topic the Buddha condemned it; Jesus did not.

Second, it is easy to make a religion appear bad by looking at the worst behaviour of its followers. What about “Kill them all; God will know His own,” from the Massacre at Béziers? Christians started a civil war in America to preserve slavery. Christians have been killing other Christians over religious differences from the Wars of Religion to Northern Ireland in the 20th century.

All religions have less than perfect followers, Buddhism and Christianity included.

When did Buddhist countries end slavery?

Slavery existed until the 20th century in Thailand.

 

[rossum]

The biggest non-true thing you say is that sin is ignorance. Many people are aware and even told many times what’s wrong and still do wrong.

There is no such thing as sin in Buddhism. There are wise actions and unwise actions. Wise actions lead to happiness in this and future lives; unwise actions lead to suffering in this and future lives.

Of course, the downside of no sin is that there is no forgiveness of sin either. You cannot escape karma:

Neither in the sky nor in mid-ocean,
nor in a cave in the mountains,
is there a place where a man
can escape his evil deed.

– Dhammapada 9:12

 

[rossum]

Slavery existed until the 20th century in Thailand.

Murder exists until the 21st century in both Christian and Buddhist countries. Not every follower of a religion follows the precepts of that religion, as I am sure you have noticed.

It is easy to make religion A appear better than religion B by comparing the best of religion A with the worst of religion B. Often the best is the ideal version preached by the founder, while the worst is the actions of the founders followers, sometimes centuries later.

 

[Vico]

First, I note your failure to produce any quote from Jesus relating to slavery. …

Mark 12:30-31

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these.

St. Paul to the Colossians 4

1 Masters, do to your servants that which is just and equal: knowing that you also have a master in heaven.