Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[benedictus2]

Actually, I understood the hamburger steak analogy. You are comparing you religion to the steak, and other religions to hamburgers. I think you missed my point. Showing up in India with a hamburger steak spiritual analogy is about as culturally sensitive as me showing up at a convent wearing a speedo to talk about the truths of Krishna.

Hoooold it! When did we say that we will be going to India with such an analogy?

You see, this the reason why your replies unravel. You go off on all sort of tangent that has no bearing the discussion.

That analogy was given here, for people who do eat beef.

The point of the analogy is Christian’s should be evangelists, that is, out there proclaiming the Good News that is Jesus Christ.

He could have used another analogy it just so happened that he used the beef one. He could have said “why use a flashlight when you’ve got the sun for illumination?” -(which is the one I usually use) to send the same message.
It is just an analogy, he was not being culturally insensitive because this is a Catholic forum where presumably eating meat is the norm.

That was the point Benedictus. It would be like me saying “Be a Hindu rather than a Christian - why hold up a convenience store when you can rob a bank?”

Huh!? How is that even minutely similar to the beef analogy?

You see, eating animals, especially a cow is not much better than robbery on a moral scale in certain cultures. You wouldn’t convince many people that you had a spiritual message of any import.

And all that is neither here nor there in relation to this discussion because it is not about how we should spread Christianity to India.

It probably would not go down very well either in China since they are partial to pork .

So, yes I got your point, saw your meaning, and saw some things in it that you may not have seen yourself. But you do crack me up.

Your friend
Sufjon

If you know me better, I will crack you up even more. I am the office comedian. Our receptionist once told me that I am the funniest person she has ever known. Seriously.

I wonder what she will think though if she sees my posts here. Hmmm, probably think " definitely Jekyll and Hyde"

 

[RainbowNight]

It means that while you may rightfully be saddened by evil, you don’t let yourself be consumed by hatred because of it. Hatred is hatred - it is poison to your soul whether you have a reason for it or not. And by the way, anyone who has ever hated anyone usually thinks they have a reason. It doesn’t do them any good.

Instead you exude love. You radiate love. People who love only people who love them back are drinking from the small cup. People who love only what pleases them are likewise approaching the ocean of God’s love with a dixie cup. They will walk away with a dixie cup full. It is better to dive in, splash in it’s waves - bathe in it.

Now, I know that I am some sort of uncouth swain lacking in the finer points of whatever theology your faith has. But I am able to watch and listen. Hence I have reason to believe that Jesus understood what I am talking about. He didn’t wave his fist and say
“I’ll get you Pontius Pilate!” Nor did he smack Judas upside the head when he kissed Him in the garden. He did not let hatred touch His soul. He was saddened, yes. Hateful, no. His love shone on all people equally, but He was not attached. He said that you have to leave your attachments behind to follow Him. It is the sort of detachment where you cling to nothing, but love all things. To hate anything is a ponderous weight on the soul.

Your friend
Sufjon

“Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matthew 5:48. Be full of love as your heavenly father is fulled of love.
Love knows no hatred…hard but true…

 

[tomarin]

It’s very important not to caricature and jump to conclusions when dealing with other religions.

Edwin

Well said.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It means that while you may rightfully be saddened by evil, you don’t let yourself be consumed by hatred because of it. Hatred is hatred - it is poison to your soul whether you have a reason for it or not. And by the way, anyone who has ever hated anyone usually thinks they have a reason. It doesn’t do them any good.

Instead you exude love. You radiate love. People who love only people who love them back are drinking from the small cup. People who love only what pleases them are likewise approaching the ocean of God’s love with a dixie cup. They will walk away with a dixie cup full. It is better to dive in, splash in it’s waves - bathe in it.

Now, I know that I am some sort of uncouth swain lacking in the finer points of whatever theology your faith has. But I am able to watch and listen. Hence I have reason to believe that Jesus understood what I am talking about. He didn’t wave his fist and say
“I’ll get you Pontius Pilate!” Nor did he smack Judas upside the head when he kissed Him in the garden. He did not let hatred touch His soul. He was saddened, yes. Hateful, no. His love shone on all people equally, but He was not attached. He said that you have to leave your attachments behind to follow Him. It is the sort of detachment where you cling to nothing, but love all things. To hate anything is a ponderous weight on the soul.

Your friend
Sufjon

I don’t know about hatred, but it is a common misconceptionn that Jesus was detached and passive. Jesus had a lot of righteous anger against evil, and as Benedictus says we are to turn against evil.

Jesus was compassionate to the poor and oppressed, but I don’t think he was radiating much love to the pharisees and the hypocrites. And when confronting the moneylenders in the temple:

"Tthe Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!”

I would not call that detached. Also, when he died for us, he was not detached. He sweated blood in the garden. He rebuked his discipiles for falling asleep. He cried out on the cross “I thirst!” “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

So I would say Jesus was a very passionate, involved and emotional man, not a detached, dispassionate man.

 

[Denise1957]

It means that while you may rightfully be saddened by evil, you don’t let yourself be consumed by hatred because of it. Hatred is hatred - it is poison to your soul whether you have a reason for it or not. And by the way, anyone who has ever hated anyone usually thinks they have a reason. It doesn’t do them any good.

Instead you exude love. You radiate love. People who love only people who love them back are drinking from the small cup. People who love only what pleases them are likewise approaching the ocean of God’s love with a dixie cup. They will walk away with a dixie cup full. It is better to dive in, splash in it’s waves - bathe in it.

Now, I know that I am some sort of uncouth swain lacking in the finer points of whatever theology your faith has. But I am able to watch and listen. Hence I have reason to believe that Jesus understood what I am talking about. He didn’t wave his fist and say
“I’ll get you Pontius Pilate!” Nor did he smack Judas upside the head when he kissed Him in the garden. He did not let hatred touch His soul. He was saddened, yes. Hateful, no. His love shone on all people equally, but He was not attached. He said that you have to leave your attachments behind to follow Him. It is the sort of detachment where you cling to nothing, but love all things. To hate anything is a ponderous weight on the soul.

Your friend
Sufjon

Your response is directed toward Christine, but I just want to give a short reply. you are correct, I think, in that Jesus Christ was not attched to what Pilate said (if that’s what you meant). But it’s important to remember why it was that He willingly allowed himself to be brutally tortured and crucified - it was out of His great love and attachment to us that he willingly did this. And it was the will of the Father that He do so.

 

[Denise1957]

I’d like to add a thought or two about detachment. I could be wrong, but in Catholicism, detachment from things of the world is not an end in itself. We are called upon to leave the things of the world and follow Him. We are to attach ourselves to that which is permanent and which loves us with an indescribable and profound love - the love that God has for us.

It is not considered sinful of course, to have a nice house to live in and a nice car to drive, etc., but hopefully we will not be too attached to these things and forget that our real attachment should be to Him that created us. I can’t remember where in scripture it says this, but a young man went and spoke to Jesus, saying that he wanted to follow Him. The young man said that he kept the commandments (ten commandments), but then Jesus told the young man that he should also go and sell all that he owned and then follow Him. Jesus wanted him to go the extra distance, to do more than what was basically required - to follow Him. But the young man balked, and left Jesus. How many of us would be willing to sell all that we own, give the money to the poor, and follow Him? There have been saints and monastics and other religious who have done this - St. Francis being my favorite example.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’d like to add a thought or two about detachment. I could be wrong, but in Catholicism, detachment from things of the world is not an end in itself. We are called upon to leave the things of the world and follow Him. We are to attach ourselves to that which is permanent and which loves us with an indescribable and profound love - the love that God has for us.

It is not considered sinful of course, to have a nice house to live in and a nice car to drive, etc., but hopefully we will not be too attached to these things and forget that our real attachment should be to Him that created us. I can’t remember where in scripture it says this, but a young man went and spoke to Jesus, saying that he wanted to follow Him. The young man said that he kept the commandments (ten commandments), but then Jesus told the young man that he should also go and sell all that he owned and then follow Him. Jesus wanted him to go the extra distance, to do more than what was basically required - to follow Him. But the young man balked, and left Jesus. How many of us would be willing to sell all that we own, give the money to the poor, and follow Him? There have been saints and monastics and other religious who have done this - St. Francis being my favorite example.

I agree with you Denise, that we should not be attached to worldly possessions.

However, I don’t think Jesus was unattached to people themselves. Look how he wept when his friend Lazarus died!

This is where I think I am having a problem with the eastern concept of detachment.

 

[Denise1957]

I agree with you Denise, that we should not be attached to worldly possessions.

However, I don’t think Jesus was unattached to people themselves. Look how he wept when his friend Lazarus died!

This is where I think I am having a problem with the eastern concept of detachment.

Yes, I very much agree!

 

[Denise1957]

Another factor, I think, in giving up everything and following Our Lord, is that we will then have to, by circumstance, resort to prayer and dependence on Him for all that we have in this world. I’m not explaining it very well; maybe someone who is better versed in Catholic teaching would be willing to comment further.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Another factor, I think, in giving up everything and following Our Lord, is that we will then have to, by circumstance, resort to prayer and dependence on Him for all that we have in this world. I’m not explaining it very well; maybe someone who is better versed in Catholic teaching would be willing to comment further.

Yes you are so right. We don’t have to search anywhere else for meaning and purpose in our lives, only in God. But that does mean conforming to His will, not our own. And prayer is our way to communicate with Him.

But hey, I’m not an expert either!

 

[Denise1957]

Yes you are so right. We don’t have to search anywhere else for meaning and purpose in our lives, only in God. But that does mean conforming to His will, not our own. And prayer is our way to communicate with Him.

But hey, I’m not an expert either!

I find it so difficult, though, to conform to His will, so much of the time.

I can’t remember where I recently read or heard this (maybe it was somewhere on CAF), but I recall reading or hearing a description of a holy person, in that holiness does not necessarily exist in those who are outwardly devout and pious, but rather holiness exists in those who conform their lives to the will of God. Such people may even go unnoticed, too. Not an easy thing to do, of course, to comform to His will. And it’s not easy to determine what His will always is, either. And as you mentioned, prayer is our way to communicate with Him.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I found a very enlightening site about Hinduism vs. Christianity:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0008.html

Here are some very interesting remarks concerning the above:

“Hindus are hard to dialogue with (because)… Hindus are very tolerant. Nothing is false; everything is true in a way.”

Ha ha - how true that is!!

and this is really interesting:

"Hinduism claims that all other religions are yogas: ways, deeds, paths. Christianity is a form of bhakti yoga (yoga for emotional types and lovers). "

Okay you can read the rest!!

 

[Sufjon]

“Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matthew 5:48. Be full of love as your heavenly father is fulled of love.
Love knows no hatred…hard but true…

Thanks RainbowNight. That is indeed the way!

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Contarini]

I agree with you Denise, that we should not be attached to worldly possessions.

However, I don’t think Jesus was unattached to people themselves. Look how he wept when his friend Lazarus died!

This is where I think I am having a problem with the eastern concept of detachment.

If that is the Eastern conception, then I have a problem with it too. I think it may depend on what we mean by attachment to persons. It is quite possible to treat persons as objects, and that would obviously be a bad form of attachment.

I agree that any form of asceticism that downplays the value of personal affection or sees this as an obstacle to spiritual progress has something wrong with it. I just think you need to be a bit more tentative in your assumption that this is “the Eastern view of detachment.”

Edwin

 

[Sufjon]

Jesus was compassionate to the poor and oppressed, but I don’t think he was radiating much love to the pharisees and the hypocrites. And when confronting the moneylenders in the temple:

"Tthe Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!”

I would not call that detached. Also, when he died for us, he was not detached. He sweated blood in the garden. He rebuked his discipiles for falling asleep. He cried out on the cross “I thirst!” “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

So I would say Jesus was a very passionate, involved and emotional man, not a detached, dispassionate man.

Hello Christine: I don’t know if it’s fair to say that Jesus hated the money changers because He got angry at them. People get angry at their spouses and children all the time, but they still love them.

Additionally, there is a difference between being passionate and attached. You can laugh, cry and do any of the things that attached people do with plenty of passion without being attached. It is a matter of living in the moment as fully as possible, but not clinging to it. Clinging causes one to long for the past and fantasize about the future. You cannot be living in the moment while ruminating over the past. I’m also not saying that this is easy to do. It takes work - lots of it.

To say “I thirst” when you’re really thirsty and really mean it when you say it, well that’s living in the moment. To say “My God, why have you abandoned me?” is am acknowledgement of your feelings, which is also living in the moment, however, in this case I think He was just being sure to prior fulfill scriptures. Touching all the bases. Either that or the Gospel writers were touching all the bases. Who can say.

Again, as I said before, the Kingdom of God will be harder to enter than the eye of the needle so long as you are attached to anything. That is the why it’s hard for a rich man to enter. He is attached. This is not the Gospel of Sufjon. It’s your Gospels. They look pretty good to me, but one can easily miss the point. It is not in contention with Eastern thought.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

If that is the Eastern conception, then I have a problem with it too. I think it may depend on what we mean by attachment to persons. It is quite possible to treat persons as objects, and that would obviously be a bad form of attachment.

I agree that any form of asceticism that downplays the value of personal affection or sees this as an obstacle to spiritual progress has something wrong with it. I just think you need to be a bit more tentative in your assumption that this is “the Eastern view of detachment.”

Edwin

I’m pretty sure that the Eastern view of attachment is the same as Jesus’s. It just may not be the same as western Christianity’s view. Technically, Christianity is an Occidentalized permutation of an Oriental religion that follows an Oriental man who was an incarnation of God in the flesh. The problem would not be with how we in the east would view Jesus. To us, He makes sense when you read what He said. The problem is that the primary commentator on the life of Jesus from which Christianity formed it’s interpretations was a Roman. Born in Tarsus - yes, but of a Roman father and himself a Roman citizen. Hence, a lot of the meaning gets Occidentalized. Jesus makes sense to me.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

I’m pretty sure that the Eastern view of attachment is the same as Jesus’s. It just may not be the same as western Christianity’s view. Technically, Christianity is an Occidentalized permutation of an Oriental religion that follows an Oriental man who was an incarnation of God in the flesh. The problem would not be with how we in the east would view Jesus. To us, He makes sense when you read what He said. The problem is that the primary commentator on the life of Jesus from which Christianity formed it’s interpretations was a Roman. Born in Tarsus - yes, but of a Roman father and himself a Roman citizen. Hence, a lot of the meaning gets Occidentalized. Jesus makes sense to me.

Here is something primary to Christianity: It is a revelation of God and God’s choices.

God chose the Jews, and God chose to be born a Jew. Eastern pagan religions have been around for centuries but God chose the Jews for His self-revelation.

This “occidentalization” is not chance but a choice by God. As such, there is probably something that He is trying to tell us: that this perspective is the correct perspective and everything must be measured against this.

 

[benedictus2]

If that is the Eastern conception, then I have a problem with it too. I think it may depend on what we mean by attachment to persons. It is quite possible to treat persons as objects, and that would obviously be a bad form of attachment.

I agree that any form of asceticism that downplays the value of personal affection or sees this as an obstacle to spiritual progress has something wrong with it. I just think you need to be a bit more tentative in your assumption that this is “the Eastern view of detachment.”

Edwin

What then is the Eastern view of attachment and detachment? What are their scopes? To what do they apply?

 

[benedictus2]

I found a very enlightening site about Hinduism vs. Christianity:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0008.html

Here are some very interesting remarks concerning the above:

“Hindus are hard to dialogue with (because)… Hindus are very tolerant. Nothing is false; everything is true in a way.”

Ha ha - how true that is!!

and this is really interesting:

"Hinduism claims that all other religions are yogas: ways, deeds, paths. Christianity is a form of bhakti yoga (yoga for emotional types and lovers). "

Okay you can read the rest!!

And that is the crux of the matter. Christ is THE way. Not one of the the ways, but THE way. Christ is the THE truth. Not one of varying truths but the THE TRUTH, the one from Whom all truths flow.

Ockham must have been a Hindu in his past life

 

[stevekehl]

The difference is that Hinduism and Buddhism teach that man can perfect himself through, behavior, meditation, detachment, yoga, stretching, whatever, that man is perfectable. Jesus said that only by accepting His sacrifice for our sins, His grace and mercy, can we be saved. We are incapable of saving ourselves, no one deserves salvation. It can only come through faith in Christ. Frankly, I have a hard time wrapping my head around that kind of love. Even with all the stupid, selfish, unkind things I’ve done, Jesus was still willing to die for me. Buddha said “I have become enlightened by detaching myself from you,” Jesus said “I’d die to spend eternity with you.”