Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[benedictus2]

Detachment.

rossum

Isn’t that exactly what psychopath’s feel with regards evil?

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Only because you are a relativist.

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

You obviously missed the point about the hamburger and steak analogy.

 

[rossum]

Isn’t that exactly what psychopath’s feel with regards evil?

I wouldn’t know, I’m not a psychopath. Are you?

rossum

 

[Stylites]

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

Thanks for the clarification. Even though I’m not a scholar, I seem to remember that one or more of the Gospels were written and used while many of the Apostles were still living. Apologists will also state that every Apostle except St. John were martyred, and the 10 who were martyred went gladly to their deaths, and that fact speaks volumes to the truth of the Gospel accounts on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

 

[rossum]

It wasn’t me who brought up the topic of what psychopaths think.

rossum

 

[Stylites]

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

We’ll have to factor in that Adolf Hitler was kind to animals and was a vegetarian, so using your logic one would have to say that Nazism was a benevolent movement, eh?

 

[Contarini]

Except that Mark didn’t write Mark. Matthew didn’t write Matthew,Luke didn’t write Luke and John didn’t write John. All were written many years after Christ (c. 70 to 90 CE).

I think a good case can be made for Mark being written before A.D. 70. None of the dates for the Gospels are more than conjecture, except that we know that all the Gospels were written at some point either before or (at the very latest) just after the turn of the second century.

However, accepting the standard scholarly dates and the truth of Marcan priority, it is quite possible that Mark wrote Mark and that Luke wrote Luke. It is highly unlikely, if Marcan priority is true, that Matthew wrote Matthew in the form we have it, although it is quite possible that he wrote an earlier version, perhaps corresponding to what scholars call “Q.” It is also quite possible (indeed, likely in my opinion) that the Gospel of John was written down by John’s disciples shortly after his death, based on their reminiscences of his teaching.

In general, the best way to describe the Gospels is not as direct eyewitness accounts but as accounts one step removed from eyewitnesses. The standard scholarly dating of the Gospels corresponds to the point at which the eyewitnesses would have been dying off. The standard scholarly account of the Gospels being passed down through a long redactive process doesn’t seem to fit the actual dates accepted by scholars very well. It is certainly possible that such a long and complex process might happen in a few decades, but it’s hardly certain and should not be taken as the starting point for our theories about the Gospels, as is often done. (I’m paraphrasing the argument of Richard Bauckham in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses here.)

In short, I don’t think we can prove the historicity of the Gospels. But I think there’s quite a reasonable case to be made that the Gospels are closely based on eyewitness testimony rather than being the result of a long process of tradition (the latter is a much more reasonable explanation for the formation of the Torah–but of course that’s a separate issue!).

Edwin

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I wouldn’t know, I’m not a psychopath. Are you?

rossum

Rossum, I don’t think you are a psychopath. But I do think people can take this detachment thing a little too far. For example, turning away when you see another person getting hurt or in trouble. One of the most beautiful stories in the Bible is the story of the Good Samaritan.

The thing about our God is that he cares. He keeps his eye on the sparrow, and knows about every hair of your head.

( Matthew 10:29 “For only a penny you can buy two sparrows, yet not one sparrow falls to the ground without your Father’s consent. 30As for you even the hairs of tour head have all been counted. 31So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows!”)

God cares deeply about our souls.

Eastern religion seems to be a very detached religion, where everyone is just a part of the whole - just flotsom and jetsam in the Ganges river, an endless cycle of dying and rebirth. I don’t see our personal caring God in eastern religion.

 

[Contarini]

Rossum, I don’t think you are a psychopath. But I do think people can take this detachment thing a little too far. For example, turning away when you see another person getting hurt or in trouble. One of the most beautiful stories in the Bible is the story of the Good Samaritan.

Perhaps you should not assume that you know what Rossum means by “detachment.”

In Buddhism compassion is highly regarded.

And the Christian ascetic/mystical tradition has a great deal to say about detachment from worldly desires, or in the common language of the mystics from “creatures.”

Edwin

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Perhaps you should not assume that you know what Rossum means by “detachment.”

In Buddhism compassion is highly regarded.

And the Christian ascetic/mystical tradition has a great deal to say about detachment from worldly desires, or in the common language of the mystics from “creatures.”

Edwin

Well, Jesus was not detached. Here is what he had to say about people who hurt children:

Mt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Nor was he ascetic.

 

[Contarini]

Well, Jesus was not detached. Here is what he had to say about people who hurt children:

Mt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Nor was he ascetic.

Depends on what you mean by ascetic. Christians generally believe that he was celibate, though he didn’t practice the kind of food asceticism that John the Baptist did.

And again, you are assuming that you know what “detachment” means, instead of trying to find out what either Christians or Buddhists mean/meant by it.

As a Catholic, shouldn’t you respect Tradition a little more than that? Should you be simply citing proof texts from the Gospels without listening to how the Church has historically understood this matter?

Edwin

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Depends on what you mean by ascetic. Christians generally believe that he was celibate, though he didn’t practice the kind of food asceticism that John the Baptist did.

And again, you are assuming that you know what “detachment” means, instead of trying to find out what either Christians or Buddhists mean/meant by it.

As a Catholic, shouldn’t you respect Tradition a little more than that? Should you be simply citing proof texts from the Gospels without listening to how the Church has historically understood this matter?

Edwin

The gospels are the very core of Christianity.

If anyone cares to expound what detachment means is eastern religions, be my guest

 

[Contarini]

The gospels are the very core of Christianity.

Yes, and Catholics have historically found plenty of asceticism there. A non-ascetic reading of the NT is a Protestant peculiarity.

If anyone cares to expound what detachment means is eastern religions, be my guest

I would prefer to have Rossum or someone else do this, and obviously it means different things in different contexts, but essentially it means detachment from craving. Craving is the desire to make the impermanent permanent in order to feed the ego. The example I give my students is that when you eat food that you really enjoy, you want the experience to last, and you want it over again. You experience sorrow because the pleasure doesn’t last. A “detached” person would accept the pleasure of eating food for the impermanent thing it is, let it pass, and move on.

Compassion is not an expression of craving, except in an unhealthy form in which you are feeding off your own experience of compassion and using it to bolster your false sense of self. True compassion is pretty uniformly seen as one of the greatest virtues in Eastern religions, though Mahayana Buddhism emphasizes it the most.

I’d rather see Sufjon or one of the Buddhists take this on, because I think there’s some substance to the critique of detachment that you and others are offering here. Since Hindus and Buddhists generally don’t have the moral dualism characteristic of Western religions, evil is often seen as just a part of the tapestry–or so it seems to me. But this is a difficult matter, and different Hindus and Buddhists express it quite differently.

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

Edwin

 

[Sufjon]

Yes, and Catholics have historically found plenty of asceticism there. A non-ascetic reading of the NT is a Protestant peculiarity.

I would prefer to have Rossum or someone else do this, and obviously it means different things in different contexts, but essentially it means detachment from craving. Craving is the desire to make the impermanent permanent in order to feed the ego. The example I give my students is that when you eat food that you really enjoy, you want the experience to last, and you want it over again. You experience sorrow because the pleasure doesn’t last. A “detached” person would accept the pleasure of eating food for the impermanent thing it is, let it pass, and move on.

Compassion is not an expression of craving, except in an unhealthy form in which you are feeding off your own experience of compassion and using it to bolster your false sense of self. True compassion is pretty uniformly seen as one of the greatest virtues in Eastern religions, though Mahayana Buddhism emphasizes it the most.

I’d rather see Sufjon or one of the Buddhists take this on, because I think there’s some substance to the critique of detachment that you and others are offering here. Since Hindus and Buddhists generally don’t have the moral dualism characteristic of Western religions, evil is often seen as just a part of the tapestry–or so it seems to me. But this is a difficult matter, and different Hindus and Buddhists express it quite differently.

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

Edwin

Hi Edwin: You explained it about as well as possible.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

Only because you are a relativist.

You obviously missed the point about the hamburger and steak analogy.

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. 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?” 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.

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

 

[rossum]

I would prefer to have Rossum or someone else do this, and obviously it means different things in different contexts, but essentially it means detachment from craving. Craving is the desire to make the impermanent permanent in order to feed the ego. The example I give my students is that when you eat food that you really enjoy, you want the experience to last, and you want it over again. You experience sorrow because the pleasure doesn’t last. A “detached” person would accept the pleasure of eating food for the impermanent thing it is, let it pass, and move on.

Compassion is not an expression of craving, except in an unhealthy form in which you are feeding off your own experience of compassion and using it to bolster your false sense of self. True compassion is pretty uniformly seen as one of the greatest virtues in Eastern religions, though Mahayana Buddhism emphasizes it the most.

I’d rather see Sufjon or one of the Buddhists take this on, because I think there’s some substance to the critique of detachment that you and others are offering here. Since Hindus and Buddhists generally don’t have the moral dualism characteristic of Western religions, evil is often seen as just a part of the tapestry–or so it seems to me. But this is a difficult matter, and different Hindus and Buddhists express it quite differently.

An excellent summary: “let it pass, and move on”.

rossum

 

[Sufjon]

The gospels are the very core of Christianity.

If anyone cares to expound what detachment means is eastern religions, be my guest

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

 

[benedictus2]

I wouldn’t know, I’m not a psychopath. Are you?

rossum

That reply is as lame as lame can get.

So therefore psychiatrists and psychologist are completely clueless as to the state of mind and emotion of psychopaths?

Oh but forgive me, you did give a qualification. They would, if they are psychopaths themselves.

Rossum, you really can do better than that.

 

[benedictus2]

It wasn’t me who brought up the topic of what psychopaths think.

rossum

But it was you who gave the lamest of lame of all replies.

 

[benedictus2]

Perhaps you should not assume that you know what Rossum means by “detachment.”

Considering Rossum limits himself to one liners, it’s a bit difficult not to assume anything for the dearth of information he provides. Getting him to explain is like pulling teeth.

And the Christian ascetic/mystical tradition has a great deal to say about detachment from worldly desires, or in the common language of the mystics from “creatures.”

Edwin

In Christian spiritual teaching, detachment can only apply to what one perceives as good. There is a tendency for us to want to hang on to what we perceive as good so we are taught to be detached from it to free us for the Supreme Good- God. A soul un-attached to fleeting pleasures are more easily attached to God.

I don’t think that applies to evil since we should be repulsed by evil unless one perceives what is evil as a good. In which, there is really something wrong there.