Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[benedictus2]

I agree wholeheartedly! And let’s not forget that Pope John Paul II and the Dali Lama had GREAT respect for each other. Each acknowledging the wisdom and beauty of the other’s beliefs.

That being said, I doubt that Pope John Paull II would consider the beliefs of the Dalai Lama equal in validity to Christianity.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

 

[Contarini]

But is “what they mean by Christian” what Christian really is?

“Christian” is a word. Words can be used in a lot of ways. If you want to call this “relativism,” fine, in the sense that I don’t think there is one fixed, objective meaning for every word. Just don’t assume that this has anything to do with any of the other things that are more normally called “relativism.” Furthermore, I hold this view of language because it matches the evidence.

If “Christian” means “holding to the essential truths of the faith revealed to the Apostles and handed down in the Church,” then no. If “Christian” means “a member of a religious tradition in which Jesus plays a central role,” then yes. It seems to me that the latter is on the whole the fairer and more reasonable way to use the word Christian. But I can respect people’s reasons for using the word more narrowly. Either way, given that the word is used in different ways, you need to qualify what you mean by it when you use it in a controversial discussion.

Isn’t that the whole point? That there is a certain definition of what being Christian is?

Whole point of what? If you mean “an objective truth about what it means to be a Christian,” I certainly think that there is objective truth about what it means to be an orthodox Christian. But I think the word “Christian” is best used more broadly to define any religious movement deriving in some way from Jesus. (Early medieval Christians understood Muslims to be heretical Christians, and I think there’s a case to be made for that. Muslims themselves do not choose to be called Christians, though–unlike Mormons.)

Do we make up our own definitions of what being Christian is or is there a real and true definition of that?

You’re confusing “Christianity” as a divinely revealed religion with “Christianity” as a historically discernible family of religious movements. There is of course a real and true definition of the former, though I would argue that in this life we will never have exhaustive knowledge of it. There are a lot of historical facts about the latter which should be treated fairly and responsibly.

If none, then everyone’s claim becomes equally valid and that is why I keep saying relativism.

Again, if you want to call my position “linguistic relativism” then I don’t have a problem with that. I think it’s pretty hard to argue that language is not relative. However, don’t confuse this with any other kind of relativism.

I’m not claiming that all claims to divine revelation are equally valid. I’m claiming that the “right” way to use a word is defined by its usage. Language points to reality–a word is not in itself the truth to which it points. Hence there is no absolutely “right” or “wrong” way to use a word, though there are better and worse ways to use words. Take, for example, the question of whether Catholics “worship” Mary. Catholics have always said that they pay Mary that honor which is called dulia but not that worship which is called “latria.” However, that doesn’t mean that those Catholics who have spoken of paying “worship” to the Blessed Mother were heretics or idolaters. In older usage, “worship” could be used more broadly. Today it generally refers only to latria. There’s no “right” or “wrong” way to use the word “worship.” And so on.

This does not imply that there is no fixed, objective truth about morals or about the nature of God, which is usually what people mean by “relativism.”

How is that dichotomy false and not matching reality when some sects consider him to be just a prophet and yet orthodox Christianity teaches he is so very much more than that.

JWs do not think he was just a prophet, but they do not have an orthodox view.

Huh!? Weren’t Christological disputes already settled? Was it not that those who claimed otherwise declared heretics?

Some Christological disputes were settled. We will never settle all the possible Christological disputes this side of the Eschaton, because the reality of the Incarnation is to great to be fully captured by human words. Again, that doesn’t mean that there is no objective truth about the Incarnation, or even that we can have no knowledge of the truth, only that our knowledge is never complete.

Edwin

 

[Sufjon]

Because the Son of God sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church into all truth.

Hi Benedictus: That is simply a matter of faith. In this case, it sounds like a faith in the fact that God would let countless numbers of people go around with the wrong faith, and some others go around with the right faith.

Then there would be the faith that all people are children of God, and that He has revealed Himself to them all in one way or another.

While I can accept that He revealed Himself to you and yours in the way you described, I also accept that He has revealed Himself to me in the ways that I know. My way may look a bit strange and unreal to you, while your way looks strange and unreal to me. That said, I am looking for connections between them, and I do see them. Perhaps you are not interested in connections because you don’t see them. In either case, I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that one is more or less real than the other.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

How cute…you can rearrange the words of another persons post…with buddhism and hinduism and other false religions there is no eternal salvation of the soul…with Christianity there is.

There is no salvation in these religions, because no one is lost in these religions. Calling another person’s religion false doesn’t make it false.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Nirvana21]

How cute…you can rearrange the words of another persons post…with buddhism and hinduism and other false religions there is no eternal salvation of the soul…with Christianity there is.

facepalm why can’t everyone just get along… its clear everyone thinks their religion is the right religion, just don’t be nasty with it.

 

[Contarini]

facepalm why can’t everyone just get along… its clear everyone thinks their religion is the right religion, just don’t be nasty with it.

Why do you think “getting along” is the goal? I find “getting along” to be a rather anodyne, bland, uninteresting goal for human life.

 

[Contarini]

How does the term monotheism not suggest that God is a family other than the fact that you are basing it on a prior narrow understanding of what monotheism is.

Monotheism says that there is only one God. To most people, the statement that there is only one God would seem to exclude the idea that God is a family, especially given that the polytheistic religions against which Semitic monotheism originally defined itself typically saw the highest deities as having a family relationship with each other. Certainly there is nothing about monotheism itself that suggests a family relationship, since one person is not a family and “one God” would naturally be understood to mean “one person” without further redefinition.

How is a greater understanding a tweak? A clearer view of things is not a tweak on the cloudier one.

 

[TEPO]

Why do you think “getting along” is the goal? I find “getting along” to be a rather anodyne, bland, uninteresting goal for human life.

Great points… Glad to see you back.

 

[Nirvana21]

Why do you think “getting along” is the goal? I find “getting along” to be a rather anodyne, bland, uninteresting goal for human life.

I suppose killing each other is interesting enough for you?

 

[gatewood1988]

All I can personally say on the subject (having been all three myself) is they all have similarities. A great book that I found enlightening was The Journey Home by Radhanath Swami. He went through alot of spiritual journeying before finding what was truth in his heart. He met everyone from Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama, and A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. All of these spiritual leaders had wonderful insights on God and the Divine. I find truth almost like no other within the teachings of Krsna in the Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist teachings, and the various teachers in the Bible. There are times that I yearn for the way of Krsna however so I have been confused as to what is right personally. But I do try to go to Church and really try.

 

[Contarini]

I suppose killing each other is interesting enough for you?

Well, it is. But certainly that’s not a good thing either.

Isn’t there some way that we can interact with each other while seeking the truth, without killing each other?

And I note that we find plenty of ways to kill each other that aren’t based in religious difference. Indeed, the modern secular state is arguably so interested in religions “getting along” because that way we won’t be distracted from killing those whom the modern state wishes us to kill.

Witness the Bush administration’s insistence that Islam is a “religion of peace.” This affirmation did not promote peace, but rather legitimatized warfare.

Edwin

 

[Sufjon]

All I can personally say on the subject (having been all three myself) is they all have similarities. A great book that I found enlightening was The Journey Home by Radhanath Swami. He went through alot of spiritual journeying before finding what was truth in his heart. He met everyone from Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama, and A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. All of these spiritual leaders had wonderful insights on God and the Divine. I find truth almost like no other within the teachings of Krsna in the Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist teachings, and the various teachers in the Bible. There are times that I yearn for the way of Krsna however so I have been confused as to what is right personally. But I do try to go to Church and really try.

Hi Gatewood: I’ll order the book. It sounds good.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[JMartyr73340]

I see. And how would you ascertain whether or not one understanding is more correct than another?

Your friend
Sufjon

Sorry if somebody has already answered Sufjon. I didn’t have time to read the entire thread. Threads are really long at Catholic Answers!

How can you ascertain whether one understanding is more correct than the other? Simple - through logical analysis. Logic is the great gift God gave us to discern truth from falsehood. If the major doctrines of Buddhism and Hinduism contain logical contradictions then those doctrines must be rejected. I’m sorry if the idea of rejecting something offends you, but if you are serious about becoming Christian then you must reject what you discover to be untrue.

I’m no expert in Buddhism and Hinduism, but I believe they contain some logical contradictions. It is difficult to make statements about Buddhist doctrine because there are so many different versions of Buddhism (the same problem occurs when you try to make statements about Protestant theology). Nevertheless, there are some general Buddhist beliefs that, I believe, are stunningly illogical.

For example, Buddhists believe that once you reach a certain spiritual state you realize that there is no distinction between truth and untruth. “Everything is one”. The distinctions that are made by objective truths are merely illusions. One Buddhist Monk I talked to asked me to give him an example of a universal truth. I said, “In the base ten number system, 2+2=4”. He said, “You need to understand that 2+2 can equal 5.”

Now, anyone who is a student of logic will see the contradiction in this. Any religion that denies the existence of objective truth undermines itself (CS Lewis). In other words, if your religion has many doctrines but one of those doctrines is, “There is no objective truth” then I have no reason to believe any of the doctrines, including the one that was just stated. The statement “There is no objective truth” is a logical absurdity, because the doctrine is *stating * an objective truth. It’s hypocritical.

Without a good grasp of logic, a person’s understanding of truth (and how to attain it) will always be flawed and/or limited. Take a look at these statements. I believe many Hindus and Buddhists would agree with them:

*“There is no universal truth.”

“All generalizations are false.”

'“It is wrong to impose our beliefs on others.”

“Don’t judge other people! It’s wrong to tell other people that they are wrong, Just focus on yourself.”*

GK Chesterton, a great Christian theologian, said, ***“There are two types of people in this world, those who know they are dogmatic and those who don’t.” ***It may surprise you to realize this, but Buddhist and Hindus are just as dogmatic about their beliefs as Christians. The problem is that they don’t see it, because they are dogmatic about *not being dogmatic *(another contradiction).

.

 

[meltzerboy]

That being said, I doubt that Pope John Paull II would consider the beliefs of the Dalai Lama equal in validity to Christianity.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

Of course Pope John Paul II did not place the religious beliefs of Buddhism on an equal footing with those of Catholicism. But he could still appreciate the moral principles and truths that Buddhism offers. And in that respect Buddhism and the other great religions of the world do not significantly differ from Christianity. If one is well grounded in the teachings of one’s own faith, one can still adhere to them and, at the same time, learn about and value the shared beliefs, as well as the different perspectives, of other faiths. I don’t see any intrinsic contradiction or evil in doing so. I’ll bet Pope John Paul II was well versed in the teachings of other religions.

 

[TrueLight]

There are some here who like philosophy but I have seen people get their ideas shut down hard in here by hard core Catholics with closed minds. I
Rturner76

I’m sorry but that actually made me laugh out loud. We’ll if you’re going to follow a religion, you might as well be hardcore.

 

[TrueLight]

Of course Pope John Paul II did not place the religious beliefs of Buddhism on an equal footing with those of Catholicism. But he could still appreciate the moral principles and truths that Buddhism offers. And in that respect Buddhism and the other great religions of the world do not significantly differ from Christianity. If one is well grounded in the teachings of one’s own faith, one can still adhere to them and, at the same time, learn about and value the shared beliefs, as well as the different perspectives, of other faiths. I don’t see any intrinsic contradiction or evil in doing so. I’ll bet Pope John Paul II was well versed in the teachings of other religions.

I’ve always found it interesting that modern Jews seem to be able to respect other religions but still see themselves as God’s people? is that correct, or am I wrong?

It certainly wasn’t the case in the Old Testament where there were lots of wars, sometimes because other countries followed pagan gods.

How did you all get to that point?

The Catholic Church seems to have become more embracing as well.

Is that a natural evolution of all religions? That we begin to see the common elements and become more embracing while still maintaining our own beliefs?

 

[lareinatortura]

A friend of mine lent me his World Religions(Huston Smith) text book. I ended up reading the chapters on Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism. The 3 religions all shared notable storys and teachings such as:

Mara trying to tempt Buddha (Jesus in the desert with the Devil)
The ideas of acceptance of God.
The stages of life (Sacraments),
The idea of letting go of material items to follow God or a deeper calling.
The 10 Commandments and Path of Renunciation (refrain from certain things for God)
Love, joy, and peace and a lifestyle free from guilt.

These are all deep basic ideas that all trace back to morality, and the idea of 1 God; living a better lifestyle. In a sense, they all seem the same on ground level. Is it possible to be Christian but agree and follow some Hinduist and Buddhist ideas?

Hi there,

I’ve actually read that book for a class. While I think that Huston is an insightful man, the claim that Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity “fit together” is wrong. Are there similarities between those three religions? -Yes, but they are not the same, and they sure as heck don’t fit together, as if they were all just little pieces to one big puzzle.

This belief that “there is more than one way to God” seems to be a common belief these days. It’s really sad because God is pretty clear that there is only one way.

I’m not trying to shoot you down or tell you you’re wrong, but I had to tell you what I believe to be true. I’ll tell you something personal. Before I became a Christian, I was practicing Buddhism. About a year before I accepted Jesus Christ, I wanted to partake in the Triple Gem Ceremony at my local temple.

I was very attracted to Buddhist ideas of compassion, freedom from suffering, and enlightenment in the sense of knowing what makes one suffer, and learning how to overcome those things. (I didn’t believe in Nirvana in the way that some people do, like it’s some sort of non-Christian heaven. My interpretation of Nirvana was a state-of-mind). I was learning how to become a “more enlightened being,” but I was dead inside. I was empty. I felt alone.

Well, guess what, my friend?

I realized that these things are similar to what Christ taught. Christ taught compassion, freedom from suffering, and His own sort of “enlightenment,” if you will; but, there are so many other, different things He taught. And I love that.

Looking back at my experiences with Christianity and with Buddhism, I ask myself if they fit together. The answer is no. Both the Buddha and Jesus Christ taught wisdom, but only one taught people what they need to know to go to Heaven.

And it wasn’t Siddhartha Gautama. .

 

[JMartyr73340]

I’m sorry but that actually made me laugh out loud. We’ll if you’re going to follow a religion, you might as well be hardcore.

Well…I hope I’m not “close minded” (the people who use that phrase should really define what they mean). But, to some extent, I agree with what Chesterton said. Everyone is dogmatic (hardcore). Some know they are, some don’t.

Logical argument is argument at its best.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’ve always found it interesting that modern Jews seem to be able to respect other religions but still see themselves as God’s people? is that correct, or am I wrong?

It certainly wasn’t the case in the Old Testament where there were lots of wars, sometimes because other countries followed pagan gods.

How did you all get to that point?

The Catholic Church seems to have become more embracing as well.

Is that a natural evolution of all religions? That we begin to see the common elements and become more embracing while still maintaining our own beliefs?

This idea of the Jews’ being G-d’s “Chosen People” is often misunderstand by Jews and non-Jews alike. What it means is that Jews bear a special responsibility of practicing G-d’s Word and bringing that Word to others, slowly and gradually, by their example (not by proselytizing). It does NOT mean that G-d regards the Jewish people as holier or loves them more than other people. The battles in the Hebrew Bible between Jews and Pagans have been interpreted in several ways but the notion that G-d does not love the so-called “enemy” is not a Jewish concept. G-d Himself tells us so in the Hebrew Bible: for example, “Rejoice not when thine enemy falls” and similar passages. The OT G-d is not a G-d only of wrath and justice, as He is often depicted: there is much love and mercy as well. This love I believe should be extended to non-Jews (as well as Jews) in the modern world. What G-d’s plan might be in creating so many different religions apart from Judaism (as well as disagreements within Judaism) I do not know, but I do believe–as a famous Rabbi once stated–that it is all part of G-d’s plan. It may sound like wishful thinking, but I hope what you call a natural evolution (which, by nature, is a slow process as opposed to the many man-made revolutions) can be part of all religions and all individuals. Perhaps in that way we can some day achieve peace on Earth.

 

[dharmasister]

That being said, I doubt that Pope John Paull II would consider the beliefs of the Dalai Lama equal in validity to Christianity.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

I have never read or heard anything that JP2 said about the beliefs of the Dalai Lama so I won’t speculate, however, from what I have seen they seemed to have a deep respect for one another. Is there something at the link you included that specifically states JP2’s opinion as to whether or not he believes that the Dalai Lamas beliefs are not equal in validity to Christianity? I checked out the link, cool site btw, but there’s a lot there.