Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[benedictus2]

God chose the Jews according to the Jews. The OT wasn’t written by God. It was written by Jews.

Only because you are a relativist.

od also revealed Himself among Eastern people as well.

Yes He did. But not quite in the same fullness.

We do not believe that Jesus was the first incarnation of God in human flesh.

And every single “incarnation of god” is dead save for Jesus.

What He said when He came as Jesus

He did NOT come AS Jesus. He was the only Son of God. He is not one ascended master among many, He is not one more guru among many. He is the Son of God. He is God.

matches what He said and did the other times,

Did they claim to be the Son of God? Did they all rise from the dead too?

youtube.com/watch?v=lWf-h2BLzOA

unless you take this Occidentalized view we are talking about, which didn’t come from Jesus. That came from Paul. The Roman. This makes him western.
The Occidental view which happens to be what God chose.

Or it could be that the people who brought you that perspective were the ones He warned you to be on the lookout for.

Your friend
Sufjon

Actually He warned about people who brought your perspective. Although He didn’t exactly warn about that. Rather, He came to also redeem that perspective by giving us a new one. Into that faint glimmer of light, He brought the fullness of Truth.

 

[benedictus2]

The more we learn about non-Christian religions, particularly Hinduism, the “less-not-in-common” with them we see. Any faith which has as its ultimate goal the union of the human soul with God, and preaches moral and ethical lifestyles to achieve that goal is not all bad.

And contrary to a popular belief, Hinduism is not polytheistic. Hindus believe there is one God who has many aspects. Just as some Muslims and Jews incorrectly believe that Christians are polytheists because we believe in one God who has three persons.

They are pantheists not polytheists.

And while they may desire union with God (which is of course only natural since that is what we were created for) their concept of what that union is, or what God is or how that union is to be achieved is very different to Christianity.

 

[benedictus2]

I made an attempt to answer this question in my post 215. Both rossum and Sufjon were so kind as to say that they found it essentially accurate. However, I myself have some questions about how Hindus and Buddhists would apply (or not) the concept of attachment to such things as close friendships (Jesus weeping over the death of Lazarus, for instance). I think there is a difference between how Christians deal with such questions and how Hindus or Buddhists do, since each of these three religions has a different account of the human person.

However, pretty much anything objectionable one can find in the Eastern religions in terms of speaking disparagingly of human ties can be matched in Christian asceticism, so I think we shouldn’t assume that any of the three religions are monolithic on these points.

At any rate, how about you start with my post 215, since it was endorsed by the two “Easterners” on this thread.

Edwin

I did see that post. I even responded to it.

That kind of detachment can be legitimately applied to the created good but I don’t think it is applicable to evil.

So if Rossum and Sufjon okayed that, then that still missed the point of whether one must be detached in this manner about evil.

 

[benedictus2]

God has spoken to all people in the ways in which He reveled Himself to those people. He revealed Himself as Jesus to the Jews n a Jewish context, with teachings that were way out of the grasp of many who heard Him. So it is every time He comes among people. This is not unique. It was unique to the Jews, but not unique in the course of the larger human experience.

It was unique because only Jesus claimed to be God Himself.

Reveleations to other religions are veiled and are mostly these people’s own attempts at understanding the God and the cosmos.

With Christianity, it is different, it is God Himself who came to reveal Himself in person.

Monotheism does not mean God being separate from creation. It means one God.

No. Monotheism means one God separate from creation. The other option is pantheism.

Dualism cannot be tagged on to the meaning of monotheism. It is a separate meaning altogether. By the way, my faith believes in one God as well.

But your faith is pantheistic not monotheistic.

To think otherwise is the same as when people outside of your faith say that you are polytheistic because you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

But that is only because it is hard to wrap one’s head around Three Persons in One God.

While I would fault Paul with a lot of misunderstanding regarding Jesus, I don’t believe I ascribed that error to him.

There isn’t any misunderstanding about Jesus especially coming from Paul. The misunderstanding about Jesus come from other religions.

 

[benedictus2]

Jesus was nonetheless a man of the orient, and His teachings show that His thinking was very much like an Indian Sadhu. John the Baptist was certainly like a Sadhu. No one is trying to pull a clever reversal on you.

Jesus was Jewish, His thinking was Jewish. That is why He came fulfill Judaism not Hinduism or any other eastern religion.

That is why to truly understand Jesus one must understand Judaism. Many limit their knowledge of Jesus to the NT but much of that will not make sense unless one understands the OT as well.

 

[rossum]

I supposed this is why one does not see many Hindu and Buddhist charitable organizations.

How hard did you look? Tzu Chi Foundation.

rossum

 

[benedictus2]

How hard did you look? Tzu Chi Foundation.

rossum

I did not say there weren’t any. I said not many… Most relief and aid organizations and those working for justice are Christian in origin.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Everybody:

I haven’t had time to read the entire string but I think this is a fascinating discussion. I think this string is really demonstrating the differences between Buddhism/Hinduism and Christianity, such as whether truth is subjective or objective, whether logic is valid or invalid, and whether reality as we perceive it (with all its many distinctions) is real or “just an illusion”.

I do not mean to be condescending to anyone who disagreed with him, but Benedictus2 replies have been priceless . There are a few points I’d like to make. Please forgive me if somebody (maybe Bendictus2) has already made them. As I said, I did not have time to read the whole string.

For the Christian, the opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is* indifference*. Suppose I had a son who was doing evil things. If I do not correct my son (if I am simply indifferent to his actions) then I do not love him. But to correct my son I must hate the evil he is doing. If you do not hate evil, it means that, on some level, you are being indifferent towards it. For the Christian, indifference to evil, whether it is huge (like saying the Holocaust was a good thing) or minor (an unwillingness to correct a friend who is cheating on his wife) demonstrates a deficiency in one’s capacity to love. For the Christian, one of the greatest acts of love you can do for another person is to tell them the truth.

Buddhist and Hindus have incorrectly, in my opinion, assumed that the opposite of love is hate. This is why they do not like the idea of hating evil. It is also why they tend to shy away from moral truth, because moral truth demands that you accept what is good and reject what is evil.

Another difference comes from Pantheism itself. Pantheistic religions says that “all things are one”, and that all distinctions are essentially an illusion. If you really adhere to such a philosophy you will soon begin to think that anything that makes distinctions is evil. You’ll start to think that the problems in this world (like war and poverty) are the result of people making unnecessary distinctions, and failing to see the great truth that “all thing are one” (I believe they are result of sin and people not following the objective moral law of God but I am not going to discuss that here).

The problem with the Pantheistic view is that truth, by its very nature, makes distinctions. In fact, one could go so far as to say that truth equals distinction. In mathematics, mathematical truth distinguishes between wrong answers and right answers. In philosophy, philosophical truth distinguishes between valid statements and invalid statements (using logic). When logic is applied to moral questions, truth distinguishes between right actions and wrong actions.

Since truth, by its very nature, makes distinctions, people who adhere to pantheistic religions tend to take a negative attitude towards it. Moral truths are the most powerful distinctions one can make. Moral truth, more than any other form of truth, is disturbing to Pantheists because it makes the most serious, the most obvious, the most painful and the most important distinction of all - the distinction between good and evil.

This is why Hindus and Buddhists tend to look down on those who make sharp distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong. They think that the wiser you get, the more these distinctions disappear (I’m quoting Lewis here). Christians actually think the opposite. They think that the wiser you get the more clearly you can see the distinction between good actions and evil actions, and the more passionate you are in condemning evil actions.

Now some Christians, without realizing, have slipped into the Buddhist way of thinking. They think that making the distinction between good and evil is wrong (I won’t talk about the contradiction here - we already tried in this string and it got nowhere). Or they think that condemning evil means condemning the person. To them, I can only say, you need to study logic and you need to understand the relationship between logic and faith. Logic is the tool we use to distinguish between false (blind) belief and true belief.

It is precisely logical analysis (and the objective truth it reveals) that Sufjon has clearly rejected in this string, which is interesting because she claims to be tolerant towards all ideas. But rejecting Western philosophy and logic is as misguided a spiritual mistake as rejecting prayer and meditation. Both are necessary in order to attain spiritual truth.

Super!!!

 

[benedictus2]

“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…

So the Perfect Heavenly Father loves evil?

 

[Sufjon]

Only because you are a relativist.

Yes He did. But not quite in the same fullness.

And every single “incarnation of god” is dead save for Jesus.

He did NOT come AS Jesus. He was the only Son of God. He is not one ascended master among many, He is not one more guru among many. He is the Son of God. He is God.

Did they claim to be the Son of God? Did they all rise from the dead too?

youtube.com/watch?v=lWf-h2BLzOA

The Occidental view which happens to be what God chose.

Actually He warned about people who brought your perspective. Although He didn’t exactly warn about that. Rather, He came to also redeem that perspective by giving us a new one. Into that faint glimmer of light, He brought the fullness of Truth.

Well, your posts this morning clearly suggest that you haven’t really done anything more than a cursory look at eastern religion, or Hinduism at least. If I get time today I’ll point that out.

Secondly. would you share some points with me on how God’s revelation to the Jews was any fuller than His revelations to others? You mentioned that it was fuller, so I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a bit.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Contarini]

“…way out of their grasp…” which means the Hebrews/Jews kept hearing the “perrenial philosophy” (as Huxley and Watts would put it) message of monism/pantheism for over 1500 years and somehow they kept interpreting it as increasing strict Monotheism in the Western meaning–which boils down to the Jews were incorrigibly stubborn and stupid.

That’s not what perennialists claim (at least the hard-core ones, especially those who are Muslims or Christians themselves–Huxley and Watts do strike me as more dismissive of the monotheistic traditions). Perennialists claim that the “esoteric” truth has various “exoteric” forms which are all true even though apparently incommensurable with each other–this is rooted in a highly apophatic concept of God as beyond names and concepts. I have problems with this view, but I don’t think it can be simply dismissed.

In the orthodox Jewish sense, it does (Kabbalah is from the 12-13th century AD and may very well have an Gnostic & Eastern origin).

The Zohar is probably from the 12-13th centuries, sure. Kabbalistic ideas go back much earlier in some form–the Merkabah texts date from fairly close to Jesus’ time.

If Gershom Scholem’s reading of the tradition is right, then “Gnostic” elements go back pretty early in Judaism. Hellenistic Judaism could be highly syncretistic. How far this would apply to a Galilean peasant is a matter of debate–it depends on which scholars you trust. I think the evidence supports a highly apocalyptic Jesus with little cultural/intellectual contact with Gentiles and does not support Sufjon’s interpretation. I certainly don’t think the view that Jesus went to India has any historical probability at all.

Since the actual writing of Vedic literature only took place a few centuries AFTER the Christian era had begun the 6000 year claim cannot be supported.

Your conclusion is correct. The Vedic hymns probably go back to about 1500 B.C. Not 6000 years, but long before the time of Jesus. However, the hymns don’t speak of the “Hindu Trinity.” Vedic literature includes layers of commentary (such as the Upanishads) that extend for centuries. The first texts I’m aware of that talks about the Trimurti is the Maitri Upanishad. It is one of the “principal” Upanishads, but most folks think it’s a relatively late one–probably after the rise of Buddhism and the reign of Ashoka. But that still leaves it possibly a couple centuries before the time of Jesus. The same is true of the Gita.

According to some Vedic scholars, the “Trimurti” of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva seems to be a conflation created by some brahmins (circa 300-400 AD) in an attempt to stop the squabblings of competing Vedic worship-cultures (“cults” in the technical sense).

That seems quite late to me. I wouldn’t base an argument on it. 300 B.C. seems like a more reasonable starting point for this period of Hinduism (the development of the “Trimurti” idea which allowed for a more personal conception of God to be linked to the philosophical idea of Brahman) than 300 A.D. But dates are hard in the study of Indian religion.

Interestingly, there’s a possibility the brahmins may have been inspired by the actual Christian conception of the Trinity, vis the 'St. Thomas Christians" on the southwest coast of India.

This seems pretty unlikely to me. I think that we all need to be “detached” from this impulse to interpret each other’s religions as derivative of our own. For one thing, Christian Trinitarianism itself wasn’t fully formed until the later 4th century–Christians certainly believed in Father, Son, and Spirit, but didn’t have well-developed theological terminology for talking about it. For another, I am not aware of any evidence that the brahmins were paying any attention to the Thomas Christians at all. And of course, you have to presuppose a very late date for the relevant texts. Furthermore, the “Hindu Trinity” isn’t that much like the Christian Trinity, in my opinion.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

A breakdown of why Jesus is NOT a “guru” (regardless of being an Avatar or not) of the the “perrenial philosophy” that runs through much of Eastern Religions. This is from Peter Kreeft’s and Ron Tacelli’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics (This breakdown is also in Kreeft’s Beyond Heaven and Hell)

Not a very good source for the study of Eastern religions.

1. Judaism is exoteric–public in worship and teachings.

Petitio principii. When you encounter esoteric Judaism, you say that it has a “Gnostic” element and so isn’t “real” Judaism. This kind of argument can prove nearly anything.

Hinduism/Buddhism/Gnosticism (HBG) is private, inner teaching, deep teachings not communicated to outsiders

There are certainly esoteric elements in the Eastern religions. I would be careful about the “HBG” construction, though. I think this lumps together some rather different things.

2.Judaism: Singular God, transcendent (you are NOT God).

Later Jewish mysticism certainly interpreted this in ways that made creation sound more like emanation. How far back those ideas go is, again, a matter of debate. But given the nature of Hellenistic thought, it is certainly quite possible that many Jews of Jesus’ day thought in ways more similar to “HBG” than K & T are willing to admit. (Of course, they may not be basing their definition of “Judaism” on what actual Jews thought, but that’s the problem with their approach.)

HBG: interpretations of pantheism or monism–seperateness is an illusion

Needs to be qualified to some extent–there are dualistic and modified-nondualist versions of Hinduism.

1. Judaism: God created and works in time and history. HBG: Time and history another illusion

I think that the word “illusion” can be misleading. Maya is not real in the way Brahman is real.

1. Judaism: God known in deeds, words, and accesable writings. HBG: “God” only known in mystical private experiences.

There’s plenty of mystical experience in Judaism. This formulation has to cut out those elements from Judaism in order to get “real” Judaism.

1. Judaism: God active initiator (king, warrior, husband, father), God searches for us (“Hound of Heaven”), male personna. HBG: God passive, only perceived by dilligant effort (“man’s search for God”), asexual or bisexual personna.

Ignores the conception of “avatars” as described in the Gita–Vishnu actively chooses to become involved in maya out of compassion. Perhaps Vishnu isn’t macho enough for Kreeft and Tacelli, though. . . .

1. Judaism: God is good, and has definate moral expectations of His creatures. HBG: Beyond good & evil–morality only for detachment to be able to “progress”.

I’m not sure this characterization is entirely fair, but it is a point on which I’d like to see more discussion. It’s the single biggest thing that bothers me about the Eastern religions.

On all eight points Jesus sided with the Jewish conception.

Not the esoteric/exoteric one. Jesus’ description in Mark 4/Matt. 13 of why he uses parables sounds pretty esoteric. I wouldn’t assume that it’s the same as Eastern/Gnostic esotericism, but you certainly have the idea of an inner circle who “get it” and outsiders who don’t.

While I generally agree that Jesus sounds very different from “HBG” on these points, the fact is that the Gospels are difficult to interpret and to evaluate historically, and that you can find NT scholars with widely differing estimates of what Jesus taught and what it means.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I did see that post. I even responded to it.

That kind of detachment can be legitimately applied to the created good but I don’t think it is applicable to evil.

So if Rossum and Sufjon okayed that, then that still missed the point of whether one must be detached in this manner about evil.

I think this is an important point that needs more discussion.

However, the problem of “hating evil” in a way that makes you evil yourself is a very serious one in Christianity. I’ve seen it up close and personal. So I would hesitate to say that “detachment” has nothing to teach us even there.

Edwin

 

[Holly3278]

We may share a few things in common but it would be very few. The eastern religions are all false. They contain very little truth.

 

[Ahimsa]

I think this is an important point that needs more discussion.

However, the problem of “hating evil” in a way that makes you evil yourself is a very serious one in Christianity. I’ve seen it up close and personal. So I would hesitate to say that “detachment” has nothing to teach us even there.

Edwin

Krishna in the Gita stated that He takes human form, age after age, for the purpose of destroying evil and re-establishing Dharma/Righteousness.

If you’re a monk, hating evil (and acting on that) would be problematic, since monks renounce the world.

But most Hindus are not monks. And even the Avatars weren’t monks, for the most part. Krishna was certainly not a monk.

Of course, the trick is to ‘hate’ evil, but to skillfully use this hatred (and not let the hatred consume you) in order to transform evil into Dharma. Krishna talks in the Gita about how to do just that.

 

[Ahimsa]

I should also mention that even monks can be warriors:

From ancient times, a tradition of militancy has existed within Hindu asceticism. At first scattered and unorganized, armed ascetics were assembled and recruited from lower castes to form a system of regiments called akharas in response to the aggressive Muslim invasions of the early 13th century. Though these were centers of military rather than religious training, many of these warrior sadhus, who are called Naga Sannyasis, or “Naked Renouncers,” continued to perform austerities and yogic practices.

This fierce-looking sadhu from a Shaivite akhara displays his sword and nag-phani, or serpent horn, which is related to Shiva’s intimate companion the
cobra. Although Nagas no longer engage in actual battles, they still proudly wield their weapons as symbols of their spiritual power and will not hesitate to use them if pressed.

Many well-known enlightened figures, such as the Buddha Himself, came from the warrior varna.

 

[Contarini]

Krishna in the Gita stated that He takes human form, age after age, for the purpose of destroying evil and re-establishing Dharma/Righteousness.

If you’re a monk, hating evil (and acting on that) would be problematic, since monks renounce the world.

But most Hindus are not monks. And even the Avatars weren’t monks, for the most part. Krishna was certainly not a monk.

Of course, the trick is to ‘hate’ evil, but to skillfully use this hatred (and not let the hatred consume you) in order to transform evil into Dharma. Krishna talks in the Gita about how to do just that.

Right. I don’t see why hating evil is problematic for monks. Certainly that language would make no sense in a Christian context.

I think the deeper issue here has to do with our definition of good and evil and our understanding of their relationship to being. Christians have traditionally adhered to a privation theory of evil–being is good and evil is a privation of the good. That’s why Christians can say, cliched though it is, “hate the sin and love the sinner.” To hate evil is precisely to love the being that is corrupted by evil.

It’s not entirely clear to me whether Hindus would agree with a privation theory of evil or not. It doesn’t seem incompatible with basic Vedanta metaphysics. But what do I know? And one of the things I do know is that Hinduism is an umbrella term covering many different theologies. . . .

Edwin

 

[Ahimsa]

Right. I don’t see why hating evil is problematic for monks. Certainly that language would make no sense in a Christian context.

I think the deeper issue here has to do with our definition of good and evil and our understanding of their relationship to being. Christians have traditionally adhered to a privation theory of evil–being is good and evil is a privation of the good. That’s why Christians can say, cliched though it is, “hate the sin and love the sinner.” To hate evil is precisely to love the being that is corrupted by evil.

It’s not entirely clear to me whether Hindus would agree with a privation theory of evil or not. It doesn’t seem incompatible with basic Vedanta metaphysics. But what do I know? And one of the things I do know is that Hinduism is an umbrella term covering many different theologies. . . .

Edwin

If by privation, you’re referring to the idea (moral) evil is due to humans choosing inferior goods and turning away from God, then that would be consistent with the Hindu (and Buddhist) idea of avidya, from “a-” meaning “non-” and “vidya” meaning “wisdom, seeing” (related to the Latin “video”, “I see”). Avidya is the “not-seeing” of the things that change (matter, thoughts, feelings, etc.) for what they really are – things that change and therefore cannot bring us total satisfaction. Avidya leads to grasping after, lusting after, what we think will bring happiness; and hating, being angry at, what we think is stopping us from being happy.

In short, avidya is delusion, ignorance, non-wisdom.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

None of the timelines you have posted are supported by most credible scholars. there are a few who support those, but they are mostly shaken up Christians with an agenda. Generally, scholarship has tended to place the composition of the Gītā r roughly the 5th and the 2nd century BCE.The Upanishads were earlier than that. Followers of Krishna are documented by Greek visitors to India hundreds of years before Christ, in secular accounts, and there could be no concept of Krishna without a Trimurti, because Krishna is an incarnation of Vishnu, who is part of the Trimurti. Yes there are a few scholars out there who have tried their best to put the theories you mentioned out there, but they are not in the mainstream.

“Composition” does not mean being put down in written form. The time periods seperating composition and being written down is far, far longer than the New Testament, even by the most critical (and modern) secular critics estimates. 1-3 generations in an oral-transmission culture is not that much. 5-10 generations on the other hand allows far too much room for embellishments, exagerations, conflations, re-compositions upon re-compositions to suit the needs of the teller and listener. Its why the 18th and early19th century deist and atheist scholars (many of them Germans and alienated sons of lutheran pastors) posited the composition of the Gospels 2-3 centuries after the events claimed. These scholars, coming from a culture that still had some oral transmission ability, figured it would take at least that long for a historical Jesus to be some mythologized by succeeding generations of followers. However the textual finds of the NT since those biased estimates were made have determined, even to the current “de-mytholigizers” that the NT was put down on papyrus withing the first century. Even Dominic Crossan admits the current NT is essentially what was first written down–so Crossan, Borg, Bultman, etc…, have to posist an incredibly intense period of “mytholigizing” (i.e. “lying”) during the oral transmission period and shove the NT writting as close to the end of the 1st century as they can get away with. Never mind some quite credible scholars (including the late, very liberal Anglican JAT Robinson) have done some quite convincing work that throws the claims of “late composition”, “Markan priority” and “Q” very much into doubt.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Essentially, as in Kreeft & Tacelli’s point #4, The eastern religions claim the validity of their theological claims are indepedent of their historical claims. Christianity, in contrast, is based on the historical claims in the NT (with the obvious exception of Revelations).