Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[CHRISTINE77]

What I don’t get about eastern religions is their lack of acknowledgement of the humanity of mankind. They believe that to attain peace and salvation (which I guess they don’t believe they need) you just need to become nothing. I don’t see any love or hate in their religion, no emotions at all. They do not acknowlege the sinfulness of mankind, which is really what makes us capable of love and forgiveness. Everything is relative, so therefore, everything is ultimately meaningless.

I believe we are in this world full of love and hate and emotions, and we don’t need to disengage from it to find meaning in our lives and deaths. Jesus certainly did not disengage from the world (as the eastern yogis do). He healed the sick, raised the dead, upturned the moneychangers’ tables, and died on the cross to save us!

 

[Sufjon]

Hi benedictus2,

Maybe I can present this in a Catholic perspective: God is Love. I’ve seen that posted here a million times, and it’s true. God is pure love. Pure love has no room for hate. It’s God’s pure love that keeps everything in existence.

Sure, we can say that God is disappointed by evil. We can even say God is saddened by evil. But God does not hate evil. It would be a contradiction to say that Love hates. Pure Love cannot hate.

We are called on to try to emulate God, to be as loving as we possibly can. That doesn’t mean loving evil, or even condoning it. What it means is to be as loving as we possibly can, without having room for hate.

As Sufjon said, we should be saddened by evil, as God is, but that doesn’t mean allowing hatred into our hearts. We should try to emulate God, and God = Love.

Xuan

Hi Xuan: You did a much better job of explaining it than I did. Thank you!

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Denise1957]

Hi benedictus2,

Maybe I can present this in a Catholic perspective: God is Love. I’ve seen that posted here a million times, and it’s true. God is pure love. Pure love has no room for hate. It’s God’s pure love that keeps everything in existence.

Sure, we can say that God is disappointed by evil. We can even say God is saddened by evil. But God does not hate evil. It would be a contradiction to say that Love hates. Pure Love cannot hate.

We are called on to try to emulate God, to be as loving as we possibly can. That doesn’t mean loving evil, or even condoning it. What it means is to be as loving as we possibly can, without having room for hate.

As Sufjon said, we should be saddened by evil, as God is, but that doesn’t mean allowing hatred into our hearts. We should try to emulate God, and God = Love.

Xuan

I dunno about this. There are examples given in the OT where God punished his chosen people because they went against his law. He usually gave them fair warning, though.

 

[Xuan]

Hi Xuan: You did a much better job of explaining it than I did. Thank you!

Your friend
Sufjon

Hi Sufjon,

You’re very welcome.

Your friend,
Xuan

 

[meltzerboy]

Dear Benedictus: You may consider if you will, the possibility that you and JMarytr have mistaken your failure to understand the answers as a dance. We are speaking to one another from vantage points that are outside of one another’s conditioning in terms of how we think and comprehend. My belief is that you are simply viewing my answers with a reasoning process that can’t be used to process the information I am sharing with you.

My sense is that the two of you are making an assertion that to love all things, one must by necessity love evil and participate in evil. That is only true if the truths I am pointing to are viewed from a dualist perspective, and indeed this has been a prevalent perspective for some time in western culture. This is becoming less and less the case. The potential for every outcome exists within the consciousness of what you would call God. Every outcome and every scenario. Each of them in their infinite numbers are born of the consciousness of God. In this state of potentiality, it is all perfect, because it is all there. It is whole. Our perception causes us to process these events as distinct and separate, and in this mode of observation, imperfections are seen, because they appear as distinct and separate outcomes…It is all fragmented. It is not. It is all part of a whole. When it is all put together, it is perfect.

Now, if you still have some fundamental question that you feel I have not answered or have danced around, please state the question again, and I will again try to answer it. I am having a hard time seeing what I have not answered.

Your friend
Sufjon

Sufjon, a famous Gestalt psychologist, Mary Henle, wrote about what she regarded as a human trait which she believed to be biologically hard-wired, namely to think in dyadic terms, rather than triadic or more. Thus we think in terms of right and wrong, true and false, black and white, good and evil. On the other hand, other psychologists speak of “cognitive complexity” to differentiate those people who are able to at least tolerate shades of gray and ambiguity in between the polar opposites, on a cognitive-emotional level. But this concept still presupposes a duality model of mind. What I understand you to be saying is that culture makes a profound difference in the way we think about the universe, life, death, consciousness, and G-d (which most psychologists today would agree with). People socialized in Eastern culture may therefore have an easier time thinking about these ideas according to a non-dualistic and continuous perspective. And I suppose people raised within Western culture can learn to think this way as well, but it would likely be more of a challenge for them to do so.

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon, a famous Gestalt psychologist, Mary Henle, wrote about what she regarded as a human trait which she believed to be biologically hard-wired, namely to think in dyadic terms, rather than triadic or more. Thus we think in terms of right and wrong, true and false, black and white, good and evil. On the other hand, other psychologists speak of “cognitive complexity” to differentiate those people who are able to at least tolerate shades of gray and ambiguity in between the polar opposites, on a cognitive-emotional level. But this concept still presupposes a duality model of mind. What I understand you to be saying is that culture makes a profound difference in the way we think about the universe, life, death, consciousness, and G-d (which most psychologists today would agree with). People socialized in Eastern culture may therefore have an easier time thinking about these ideas according to a non-dualistic and continuous perspective. And I suppose people raised within Western culture can learn to think this way as well, but it would likely be more of a challenge for them to do so.

Hi Meltzerboy: Thank you - yes, I think what you’re saying explains it. I have often wondered how I can say what I feel to be very plain on this forum and for some people it seems like there is some sort of rubber wall between myself and the person I’m talking to. I think you found the rubber wall and explained it. Thanks for the explanation.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I’ve found this book quite helpful in critiquing both Buddhist and Vedic views of pantheism and the idea that either share “basic beliefs” with Christianity:

amazon.com/Apologetics-New-Age-Christian-Pantheism/dp/1592447333/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307308277&sr=8-1

Clark and Geisler are both evangelical protestants, so there’s some of that perspective, however I didnt find anything overtly anti-catholic.

The late Alan Watts (died1974?) was an Episcopalian priest turned Zen Buddhist apologist, and he spent decades trying to prove that Christianity, especially Catholicism, had a “perrenial philosophy” which made it akin to Buddhism. The last few years of his life he gave up the attempt, finding Christianity to be so particularly exclusive in its claims, so much so it could not be reconcilled to Buddhism.

As GK Chesterton wrote (very tongue in cheek) 70 years prior to Watts to the same issue, “Buddhism and Christianity are very much alike–especially Buddhism” Which means most of the supposed similarities come from a “theological imperialism”, Buddhists (or Hindus) importing their own definitions and interpretations upon Christian dogmas and practices.

 

[TimothyH]

What you are saying is that syncretism is good and that we all worship the same god. The only problem is that we worship one God, Three in One, Muslim worship their god Allah, Jew worshio a single God and Buddhist worship Buddha or whatever. There is no way that you can come to the Father except through Christ or are you calling Christ a liar. We do not have anything in common with these other religions as mush as Oprah likes to think.

But there is some truth in every religion.

Insofar as every religion tries to explain the existence of the universe, the meaning of life, how man came to be and what is purpose is, it inclines itself toward an objective truth. Even paganism, even satanism tries to answer these most basic questions about human existence - questions about how the world was created and how we are to relate to one another. And how well that religion achieves any measure of truth can be objectively measured in how close it mirrors the teaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ established the Holy Catholic Church to teach us infallibly on matters of faith and morals and the Holy Catholic Church is therefor God’s instrument of salvation in the world; how well any religion achieves truth can be objectively measured in how well it mirrors Catholic truth.

To put it bluntly, with the full acknowledgement that non-Catholics are not going to agree with this statement… All truth is Catholic truth and as such, any religion’s adherance to the truth can be measured against the objective yardstick of the infallible magesterial teaching of the Catholic Church.

I think it is OK to folow the precepts of any religion, as long as those precepts match Catholic precepts. This begs the question of why anyone who has so much as heard of the Catholic Church, would need any other religion nor why they would want to be a devotee of such a religion.

I mean, why go out for hamburger when you can eat steak at home?

-Tim-

 

[meltzerboy]

But there is some truth in every religion.

Insofar as every religion tries to explain the existence of the universe, the meaning of life, how man came to be and what is purpose is, it inclines itself toward an objective truth. Even paganism, even satanism tries to answer these most basic questions about human existence - questions about how the world was created and how we are to relate to one another. And how well that religion achieves any measure of truth can be objectively measured in how close it mirrors the teaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ established the Holy Catholic Church to teach us infallibly on matters of faith and morals and the Holy Catholic Church is therefor God’s instrument of salvation in the world; how well any religion achieves truth can be objectively measured in how well it mirrors Catholic truth.

To put it bluntly, with the full acknowledgement that non-Catholics are not going to agree with this statement… All truth is Catholic truth and as such, any religion’s adherance to the truth can be measured against the objective yardstick of the infallible magesterial teaching of the Catholic Church.

I think it is OK to folow the precepts of any religion, as long as those precepts match Catholic precepts. This begs the question of why anyone who has so much as heard of the Catholic Church, would need any other religion nor why they would want to be a devotee of such a religion.

I mean, why go out for hamburger when you can eat steak at home?

-Tim-

What if one is a vegetarian, as Hindus are?

Why would anyone need another religion if they as much as heard of the Catholic Church? Maybe they were born into another religion and culture, and learned its teachings, which they respect and love because those teachings happen to contain much wisdom, goodness, beauty, and truth.

 

[benedictus2]

Where did the Dhammapada say that? You are setting up a false dichotomy here. One can opppose something without hating it. Do all Democrats hate all Republicans, and vice versa? Opposition does not entail hate. There are more possibilities than just hate and love.

Let me put it this way. Do you love goodness? If so then how do feel towards evil?

If you do not hate evil, then pray how do you feel about it? What stirs in your soul when you watch footages of torture, mass murder, genocide, etc, etc.

As for Democrats and Republicans, that does not even fit into the equation.

Remember, what we are talking about here is not personalities or person.
And another thing, for your analogy to fit, the question would be you either love or hate republicans or you either love or hate democrats.

But even then it would still not be correct because you are making an assumption that republican means evil itself or democrats mean evil itself.

And if there is another choice than either to love or hate evil, then please put that forward.

You are setting up a false dichotomy. Your false dichotomy is leading you into error. Error is to be avoided.

Nope it is not a false dichotomy. It looks like false dichotomy to you because you made an error in your application (refer my explanation above).

You said that there are other ways of viewing evil, so please tell us.

 

[benedictus2]

-I am saddened by evil. A mother doesn’t hate her child because her child is born a psychopath. A mother is saddened by it, assesses what she is being challenged by God to do for her child, and she sets herself about the work she has been given. She still loves her child. This is one of the slow and subtle ways that love overcomes what it bad. It is only overcome within.

Aaah, Sufjon, if you will just pay closer attention to the point then we will get farther than this.

Look at this example you are giving again, “mother not hates child”. I have already explained to you before that it is not about hating the person but hating evil. The mother may not hate the child, but how does the mother feel about the evil that the child commits? That is the distinction that you need to make. I have pointed this out already several posts ago and still you come back to this thing about hating the person.

In Catholic teaching we have this saying, love the sinner hate the sin. This is what I have been trying to point out. But your every reply always goes back somehow to this hating the sinner theme as if that is what I was trying to convey.

 

[benedictus2]

Apart from your contention on the authors and dates of the Gospels, I would have to say that the Gospel accounts are much better documented as historical facts and much more contemporaneously written than the Bhagavad Gita, which went through a thousand years of accumulation and redaction.

Excellent Point! And more historically verifiable as well.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi benedictus2,

Maybe I can present this in a Catholic perspective: God is Love. I’ve seen that posted here a million times, and it’s true. God is pure love. Pure love has no room for hate. It’s God’s pure love that keeps everything in existence.

Sure, we can say that God is disappointed by evil. We can even say God is saddened by evil. But God does not hate evil. It would be a contradiction to say that Love hates. Pure Love cannot hate.

We are called on to try to emulate God, to be as loving as we possibly can. That doesn’t mean loving evil, or even condoning it. What it means is to be as loving as we possibly can, without having room for hate.

As Sufjon said, we should be saddened by evil, as God is, but that doesn’t mean allowing hatred into our hearts. We should try to emulate God, and God = Love.

Xuan

That is a very good point.

However, I don’t think you are coming to it from the Catholic perspective of what we mean when we say God is love.

God is Love because God is a Trinity where you have the Lover, Beloved and the Love between them. That is what we mean by God is love.

I think you are thinking of the statement God is love in terms of energy but not quite in these terms.

God does not hate evil because He knows that from out of evil He can make something good. However, while we are called to become God like, so long as we are on this earth we are to hate the sin, but love the sinner.

Rossum said one can’t think in terms of this dichotomy and yet fails to give options on how one is supposed to feel about sin.

We are saddened by people sinning, but sin itself is another matter.

 

[benedictus2]

What I don’t get about eastern religions is their lack of acknowledgement of the humanity of mankind. They believe that to attain peace and salvation (which I guess they don’t believe they need) you just need to become nothing. I don’t see any love or hate in their religion, no emotions at all. They do not acknowlege the sinfulness of mankind, which is really what makes us capable of love and forgiveness. Everything is relative, so therefore, everything is ultimately meaningless.

I believe we are in this world full of love and hate and emotions, and we don’t need to disengage from it to find meaning in our lives and deaths. Jesus certainly did not disengage from the world (as the eastern yogis do). He healed the sick, raised the dead, upturned the moneychangers’ tables, and died on the cross to save us!

Excellent !!!

 

[benedictus2]

Sufjon, a famous Gestalt psychologist, Mary Henle, wrote about what she regarded as a human trait which she believed to be biologically hard-wired, namely to think in dyadic terms, rather than triadic or more. Thus we think in terms of right and wrong, true and false, black and white, good and evil. On the other hand, other psychologists speak of “cognitive complexity” to differentiate those people who are able to at least tolerate shades of gray and ambiguity in between the polar opposites, on a cognitive-emotional level. But this concept still presupposes a duality model of mind. What I understand you to be saying is that culture makes a profound difference in the way we think about the universe, life, death, consciousness, and G-d (which most psychologists today would agree with). People socialized in Eastern culture may therefore have an easier time thinking about these ideas according to a non-dualistic and continuous perspective. And I suppose people raised within Western culture can learn to think this way as well, but it would likely be more of a challenge for them to do so.

That is a very good point! Which brings us back to objective truth. with all these variants of cultural and psychological perspective, there has to be objective truth somehow especially when the two points are in opposition.

So now we’ve come back full circle.

 

[benedictus2]

But there is some truth in every religion.

Insofar as every religion tries to explain the existence of the universe, the meaning of life, how man came to be and what is purpose is, it inclines itself toward an objective truth. Even paganism, even satanism tries to answer these most basic questions about human existence - questions about how the world was created and how we are to relate to one another. And how well that religion achieves any measure of truth can be objectively measured in how close it mirrors the teaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ established the Holy Catholic Church to teach us infallibly on matters of faith and morals and the Holy Catholic Church is therefor God’s instrument of salvation in the world; how well any religion achieves truth can be objectively measured in how well it mirrors Catholic truth.

To put it bluntly, with the full acknowledgement that non-Catholics are not going to agree with this statement… All truth is Catholic truth and as such, any religion’s adherance to the truth can be measured against the objective yardstick of the infallible magesterial teaching of the Catholic Church.

I think it is OK to folow the precepts of any religion, as long as those precepts match Catholic precepts. This begs the question of why anyone who has so much as heard of the Catholic Church, would need any other religion nor why they would want to be a devotee of such a religion.

I mean, why go out for hamburger when you can eat steak at home?

-Tim-

:clapping::tiphat::bowdown:

Okay, I think I’ve covered all the emoticons that say “Super!”

The only clarification I would is the same as Meltzers’s. One may not know there is such a thing as steak so hamburger will do quite nicely.

So those who know about the steak really ought to go out there and make the world know it!

 

[rossum]

You said that there are other ways of viewing evil, so please tell us.

Detachment.

rossum

 

[Sufjon]

Apart from your contention on the authors and dates of the Gospels, I would have to say that the Gospel accounts are much better documented as historical facts and much more contemporaneously written than the Bhagavad Gita, which went through a thousand years of accumulation and redaction.

The context of my observation was simple: It was in response to being told that the Gospels were accounts written by eye witnesses of the life of Christ. My response was that it wasn’t likely that they were written by anyone who ever met Jesus. Very simple. It wasn’t a comment on the veracity of the Gospels vs truths found in the Mahabharata, Ramayana or Unpanishads, ect…

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

:

The only clarification I would is the same as Meltzers’s. One may not know there is such a thing as steak so hamburger will do quite nicely.

So those who know about the steak really ought to go out there and make the world know it!

Which would make a good case for the arrogance and typical cultural insensitivity of a people who span the world proclaiming spiritual truths that are analogous to what others would find repulsive. Specifically, in some parts of the world, the tastiness of bludgeoned carcasses of tormented animals is not very a compelling sign that the bearer of the “good news” has much of a spiritual message. It would appear to be a very bestial form of spirituality.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Detachment.

rossum

I don’t know about you, but I have a very hard time being detached when it come to something like child abuse or molestation. Children are meant to be protected and loved, and anyone who does otherwise to an innocent one is indeed a horrible sinner.