Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[benedictus2]

Or rather, the Buddhist conception of a "god’ is very different from the Christian conception of God.

I am beginning to see that. It is all rather strange. Perhaps I will understand it better when Rossum answers my questions.

Did Rossum say that the material world was an illusion?

No. Someone else that I was having a discussion with said that so I assumed this was what Rossum was saying when he said the world was deceptive.

The question is, if the world is deceptive, does that mean that the world is actually deceiving us? Who is doing the deceiving? Is this being deceptive just the nature of the created world. As far as I understand it, deception implies someone deceiving and someone being deceived. So who is the active agent in this deception? The material world is to nebulous an answer.

In Buddhist thought, we are indeed “illusions” in the sense that we imagine ourselves to have a permanent identity, when we are more like a chain of causal continuity. (Rossum, tell me if I’m not representing your views accurately–Buddhism is complicated and diverse, I know.)

Edwin

And not very logical it seems.

Another thing I would want to know is what they mean by enlightenment? What is the quality of this enlightenment? How does one determine whether one is enlightened or not?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I am beginning to see that. It is all rather strange. Perhaps I will understand it better when Rossum answers my questions.

No. Someone else that I was having a discussion with said that so I assumed this was what Rossum was saying when he said the world was deceptive.

The question is, if the world is deceptive, does that mean that the world is actually deceiving us? Who is doing the deceiving? Is this being deceptive just the nature of the created world. As far as I understand it, deception implies someone deceiving and someone being deceived. So who is the active agent in this deception? The material world is to nebulous an answer.

And not very logical it seems.

Another thing I would want to know is what they mean by enlightenment? What is the quality of this enlightenment? How does one determine whether one is enlightened or not?

Christianity is SO much simpler! We just have to accept Jesus as our savior, and follow his ways. I’m glad I don’t have to learn all these intricate rules required in Buddism and Hinduism! Christianity is one size fits all!

 

[Contarini]

But how would he have felt about the evil at the time he was confronting it?

I have never heard of that one but it seems the Krishna teaches evil then. No wonder it is so contrary to Christian teaching.

Well, the actions in question (Ahimsa asked about this, so I’m responding to both posts together) were things like striking an opponent on the legs, attacking him when his chariot was stuck in the mud, and generally behaving ruthlessly. Certain conventions were agreed to before the battle started, but Krishna consistently urged the heroes to break them when necessary in order to win. Whether this counts as “teaching evil” I’m not sure–but it does seem that in Hinduism ethics are seen primarily in terms of social codes. I am willing to be shown wrong on this. (You jump to conclusions way too quickly, it seems to me. The order of the universe will not collapse if you fail to make decisive judgments every minute.)

I find this troubling. But then, folks who have the Book of Joshua and other similar texts in our Scriptures should be careful about pointing fingers. The command to massacre whole populations certainly raises different ethical problems than an injunction to break agreed-upon military conventions, but it’s hard to see that the ethical problems are less troubling!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Christianity is SO much simpler! We just have to accept Jesus as our savior, and follow his ways. I’m glad I don’t have to learn all these intricate rules required in Buddism and Hinduism! Christianity is one size fits all!

Christianity is anything but simple. Try explaining the Trinity to someone sometime.

Your response makes no sense at all.

Reality is pretty obviously confusing and paradoxical. I expect any religion worth its salt to be equally confusing and paradoxical. Otherwise I suspect that it has little to do with reality.

If you want simplicity, Islam is a much better option than Christianity. That’s why I find Islam by far the least appealing and interesting of the major world religions

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The question is, if the world is deceptive, does that mean that the world is actually deceiving us? Who is doing the deceiving?

Buddhists sometimes speak mythologically of a deity of desire (who tempted Buddha) or a “monster of impermanence,” but essentially the “deception” is just part and parcel of the world of change and becoming. Consciousnesses grab on to the impermanent as permanent and thus deceive themselves.
A freedom from the illusion of ego and thus from the selfish craving that follows this illusion. That would be my answer–rossum may have a different one.

Oh, and in answer to your earlier question: I think that from a Buddhist perspective an enlightened person confronted with evil–with a person harming another, for instance–would simply act compassionately and effectively. What they would feel–I think it would depend on which Buddhists you ask. It does seem to me that a lot of traditional Buddhist literature–like much Western literature, including some Christian texts–speaks of emotions as if they were the same as passions and thus to be avoided. However, it seems that many modern Buddhists take a different approach, saying that emotions are fine as long as you just let them be and don’t try to hang on to them. I may be wrong on this.

Edwin

Edwin

 

[rossum]

So Buddha is higher than the gods? But Buddha never claimed to be god.

Yes and yes. If the Buddha were a god then he would not be higher than the gods, he would be among the gods.

So the goal is to be Buddha. What then is Buddha if he is higher than the gods?

It is said that soon after his enlightenment the Buddha passed a man on the road who was struck by the Buddha’s extraordinary radiance and peaceful presence. The man stopped and asked,

“My friend, what are you? Are you a celestial being or a god?”

“No,” said the Buddha.

“Well, then, are you some kind of magician or wizard?”

Again the Buddha answered, “No.”

“Are you a man?”

“No.”

“Well, my friend, then what are you?”

The Buddha replied, “I am awake.”

What then differentiates gods from other mortals?

Or it is something like these: mere mortal → gods —> buddha?

You are born a god. You attain Buddhahood. Different origins. Gods may attain Buddhahood. Other mortals may also attain Buddhahood.

If it is not what we think it is, then what is it?

We can never know. All we can know of external reality is electrical impulses entering along our sensory nerves. Those electrical impulses have been generated by our sense organs from the incoming sensations. Inevitably a lot is lost in the process. Our sense of smell is severely lacking when compared to that of a dog. Someone who is red-green colour blind will get a different set of sensations from someone who isn’t.

To know that it is not what we think it is, we must have some idea of what it actually is.

I can know that Harold Camping’s prediction of the date of the rapture is wrong without knowing what the correct date of the rapture is.

That i get but if we think we are being decieved then how do we know when we get to the stage of not being deceived? There must be some objective thing by which we gauge what and is not an illusion.

By the results. To quote the Kalama sutta:Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them."

• Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65

rossum

 

[rossum]

Christianity is SO much simpler! We just have to accept Jesus as our savior, and follow his ways. I’m glad I don’t have to learn all these intricate rules required in Buddism and Hinduism! Christianity is one size fits all!

Buddhism is simple:To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

• Dhammapada 14:5
  Some of the problems in this discussion is of people talking past one another because they work from different assumptions. Christians ask questions about things that are important in Christianity but of little relevance to Buddhism, and vice versa.

Christianity is an orthodoxy - right belief. Buddhism is an orthopraxy - right action. The details of belief in heavens, gods, hells etc. are not particularly important in Buddhism. What is important is to avoid evil, to cultivate good and to meditate.

rossum

 

[Ahimsa]

Well, the actions in question (Ahimsa asked about this, so I’m responding to both posts together) were things like striking an opponent on the legs, attacking him when his chariot was stuck in the mud, and generally behaving ruthlessly. Certain conventions were agreed to before the battle started, but Krishna consistently urged the heroes to break them when necessary in order to win. Whether this counts as “teaching evil” I’m not sure–but it does seem that in Hinduism ethics are seen primarily in terms of social codes. I am willing to be shown wrong on this. (You jump to conclusions way too quickly, it seems to me. The order of the universe will not collapse if you fail to make decisive judgments every minute.)

I find this troubling. But then, folks who have the Book of Joshua and other similar texts in our Scriptures should be careful about pointing fingers. The command to massacre whole populations certainly raises different ethical problems than an injunction to break agreed-upon military conventions, but it’s hard to see that the ethical problems are less troubling!

Edwin

Hindus have diverse ideas on Krishna and the Mahabharata.

Naturally, those Hindus who believe Krishna to be the Godhead Himself (such as Hare Krishnas), would first point to Krishna’s Divinity, and argue that anything Krishna does must be interpreted from that foundational recognition that He is God, and as God, can God do something wrong, even if it seems wrong from a human perspective?

Other Hindus, say, those who worship Shiva as the Supreme Divinity, would not even accept that Krishna was an avatar, let alone the Godhead Himself. For these Shaiva Hindus, the story of Krishna (whether the Mahabharata or the Gita) is not a story of the Divine on earth, but the story of a military warrior and political leader. I know some Shaivas who reject the Gita as scripture, in part because of its apparent support of violence.

These very different perspectives on Krishna indicate why the “Hindu” label is comparable to the “Abrahamic” label: different “Hindus” see Krishna differently, from a violent military leader, to the GodHead in Human Form; and different “Abrahamics” see Jesus differently, from a mistaken prophet, to God Himself. Yet, we put all “Hindus” in one lump category, while we differentiate Jews, Christians, and Muslims as “different religions”.

 

[rossum]

Buddhists sometimes speak mythologically of a deity of desire (who tempted Buddha) or a “monster of impermanence,” but essentially the “deception” is just part and parcel of the world of change and becoming. Consciousnesses grab on to the impermanent as permanent and thus deceive themselves.

The usual short answer is that we deceive ourselves. We tend to see the world as we want it to be, not as it really is.

A freedom from the illusion of ego and thus from the selfish craving that follows this illusion. That would be my answer–rossum may have a different one.

Close enough. I could expand, but there is a limit on the size of posts.

However, it seems that many modern Buddhists take a different approach, saying that emotions are fine as long as you just let them be and don’t try to hang on to them. I may be wrong on this.

Correct. It is not the emotion per se but the attachment to the emotion and the desire to repeat it.

rossum

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

A friend of mine lent me his World Religions(Huston Smith) text book.

That’s a phenomenal book, but it’s not without its flaws. Sometimes Smith sticks so much to western terminology (understandable, given his target audience) that certain chapters about eastern religions sometimes inadvertently minimize/belittle the things that set those religions - and the cultures of which they’re a part - apart from western religions.

The chapter on Hinduism is especially guilty of that in my opinion.

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?

The things that unite the three religions - especially the arbitrary concrete details certain stories share - are so vague and universal that I think your very question is invalid.

For instance, “ideas that all trace back to morality” - if you incorporate certain practices in line with it into your Christian life, that’s probably fine, but are you really “following some Hindu and Buddhist ideas?” Not really. There’s nothing particularly Hindu or Buddhist about things like following common-sense moral precepts, practicing self-sacrifice in the service of some higher goal, etc. Those things are present in most human cultures.

Hinduism and Buddhism are very different from Christianity. In the end, the only similarities are either (a) in arbitrary details (Mara tempted Buddha? So what? temptation stories are a nearly universal cultural motif), or (b) in broad principles that nearly all human societies share (stages of life, letting go, moral principles…)

When one responsibly engages in specificity, one finds that Christianity is different than Hinduism and Buddhism on some extremely important levels: reincarnation, pantheism, anatta, etc.

I guess I see religion a little differently. There is only one God, but every religion has their own name for Him, whether it’s Buddha, Christ, Shiva, or Jesus.

That’s a hugely problematic assertion, however, because religions that believe in each of the entities you cite have wildly different conceptions of the divine. It’s simply academically irresponsible to pretend that they’re different names for the same thing:

Buddha: claimed not to be a god. Regardless, Buddhists wouldn’t care if he were “god” in any sense, but rather in his dharma (teachings) and status as enlightened.
Christ: Greek word for the Hebrew “Messiah/Anointed One” and regarded as God in a specifically Trinitarian Judeo-Christian sense
Shiva: A Hindu god, and Hindu concepts of the divine are pantheistic and therefore about as removed from the Jewish philosophical tradition - in which Christianity finds itself - as you can get.

And the list goes on…

The practices of each are very different, but if we all get to the same place, God, what’s the difference?

Why do you assume that all religions lead to the same place? “Union with God” is not the goal of every religion (Buddhism? Confucianism?), and even in those in which it is, like Hinduism and Christianity, the very phrase means almost entirely different things.

If Buddhism and Christianity are in any way compatible, it would only be precisely because they’re so very different that they barely overlap (though when they do, usually they conflict unless we’re sticking to things that every human culture believes anyway).

Isn’t it a bit arrogant to say which way to God is correct because then we are speaking for God?

Well, if you’re a follower of Jesus Christ, you ought to take seriously His claim that “No one comes to the Father except through me” and that “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” It’s not we who are applying this exclusivity; it’s a part of Jesus’ own teachings…

Can’t we approach God from different angles?

Sure, but what if God approached us at a certain angle? That would surely be the surest route, and it is precisely the Christian claim about the person of Jesus.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

There is only one God. Traditionally Christians have believed that all monotheists should be spoken of as worshiping the same God. Early Christian apologists (including St. Paul–see Romans 1 and Acts 17) recognized the Supreme Deity of the pagans as being the true God, faulting the pagans for worshiping what they themselves recognized to be lesser beings.

I see no reason to break with this ancient tradition simply for the pleasure of sneering at Oprah.

I very much agree.

Still, we should acknowledge the importance of essentially distinct conceptions of the divine. Early Christians were able to address paganism this way because it was influenced by the very same philosophical tradition that happened to be pretty consistent - or at least useful for understanding - the kind of transcendent (mono)theism that Judaism gave the world.

It’s far easier for a Christian philosopher to work with a Demiurge type of concept - or better yet, Plato’s Form of the Good - than it is to work with a truly pantheistic worldview like the Hindu one.

Hinduism is, I think, the best and most complicated example. It’s such a sponge that it is genuinely academically difficult to define the relation between Christian truth claims and Hindu conceptions of truth and syncretism in general.

Your account trivializes all religions. Buddhists do not think that “Buddha” is another name for God. Why not listen to what Buddhists mean by Buddha (different Buddhist groups mean different things) instead of assuming that they mean the same thing you mean by God?

“Shiva” is certainly a name by which many Hindus refer to what they understand as ultimate Divinity. But we should not simply assume that “Shiva” names what we call “God” until we have done some careful study of the attributes of Shiva, the way he is worshiped, etc. (We should also not assume, as some Christians do, that “Shiva” points to evil.)

Well said!

Actually, as I’m scanning this thread, Contarini, it’s your posts that most impress me. Thank you for bringing some much-needed clarity and common sense into this discussion.

It may be true that Hinduism doesn’t fit into the puzzle of Christianity. Christianity, however, may easily fit into the puzzle of Hinduism.

An important distinction. I may not agree with much of what you’ve said in this thread, but I certainly agree with these two points! (Even where I disagree, I appreciate your competence, nuance, and the fact that you’ve clearly done your homework)

I really can’t relate to your views on Paul’s writings, which to me seem deeply joyful and optimistic. But hey, I can also think off the top of my head of passages that would support your view, so I admit it’s not exactly clear-cut.

Wrong. That statement in itself reveals that you aren’t even aware of one of the primary and most basic tenets of Hinduism. Jesus was not the only one to claim to be an incarnation of God. He wasn’t even the first. He wasn’t even the last. He’s just the only one in your particular tradition.

Is it really fair to compare these? Incarnation in the context of transcendent Jewish monotheism is a quite different concept - and, even as a Christian, I will joyfully and playfully say a much more absurd concept - than incarnation in the context of monistic Hindu pantheism.

Or am I missing something? I have a basic knowledge of Hindu beliefs and terminology, but only just enough to ensure that I never forget just how little I’ve plumbed its considerably flexible depths.

There were a number of initial iterations that condensed into one about 300 years later

Actually, isn’t it true that most of the gnostic variations that were rejected by the group that became the Roman Empire’s state church had pretty much collapsed by the middle of the third century? And starting in the fourth century, the Arian heresy - followed by the next century’s Assyrian and Monophysite/Miaphysite schisms - ensured that there wasn’t a single unified Christianity even until the eleventh century.

That said, I think it’s quite reasonable to believe that Paul’s interpretation is consistent with what Jesus actually taught, since he worked so closely and was accepted by those closest to Jesus (His Apostles who knew Him throughout His public ministry).

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This is the problem: the common, though incorrect, belief that Hinduism (leaving Buddhism out of this for a minute) is “pantheistic”.

Pantheism is the equation of the material universe with “God”, such that there is no non-material reality. Everything is composed of matter/energy, and a pantheists places the label “God” upon this collection of matter/energy.

That’s not Hinduism.

In the Gita, Krishna explains that (1) there is the realm of matter/energy (called the “gunas”); and (2) there is That Which Transcends, and yet Pervades, matter/energy:

“He who faithfully serves Me
with the yoga of devotion, going
beyond the three gunas, is ready
to attain the ultimate freedom.” – BG 14:26

A commentary on this verse indicates that the realm of matter/energy is not to be equated with God (even though God pervades the material cosmos, nonetheless): “In this verse Lord Krishna is specifically answering how such a jiva or embodied being transcends the three gunas or modes of material nature. One who is exclusively devoted to the Supreme Lord alone without cessation…is able to completely transcend all influences of the three gunas and achieving the state of the brahman or the spiritual substratum pervading all existence becomes worthy of moksa or liberation from material existence and ultimately attains the Supreme Lord Krishna.”

Interesting! Hinduism is notoriously tricky to navigate, especially to a western mind.

Still, are you sure pantheism must have the meaning you ascribe to it? My understanding is that pantheism does not deny the existence of “non-material reality” but rather asserts that that very distinction - material and spiritual - is, well, immaterial. I don’t think pantheism needs to focus on the physical components of the universe (matter and energy specifically) as much as you make it.

“Everything is composed of matter/energy” sounds like materialism to me, which I suppose would be easy to confuse with pantheism since both collapse or conflate the supposed difference between the world and the divine (pantheism by identifying the former with the latter and materialism by identifying the latter with the former).

For clarity’s sake I checked to see what the wikipedia article on pantheism has to say, and I found that it claims one of the Upanishads’ “Great Sayings” claims that “This whole universe is Brahman, from Brahman to a clod of earth." But I can’t verify this, since it doesn’t list a source. Do you know if that’s a genuine quote?

The material world exists. The problem is that it is not what we think it is. The illusion is inside our heads, not in the outside world.

I’m absolutely fascinated by the way in which what you just said reminds me of the epistemology of the philosopher Immanuel Kant!

By the way, rossum, as I’ve been scanning this thread, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your responses. I know you’ve had to put up with a great lack of nuance throughout from many replies, and I’m grateful you stuck with it. I’ve learned some things about Buddhism along the way.

Hi Lion of Narnia:

-Again, I will clarify that Hinduism is monotheistic.

-Jesus acted more like an Essene than a temple Jew.

-I cannot see in any of His teachings where He is in conflict with any of the teachings of the other Avatars.

-I do see differences in how certain (but not all) early church leaders interpreted the teachings of Jesus when compared to eastern thought. I am more interested in Jesus than I am in them.

Your friend
Sufjon

That is a very Hindu perspective that illustrates precisely just how complex these issues are. This thread has reminded me yet again that defining the relationship between Christianity and Hinduism is inestimably more difficult than defining the relationship between, say, Christianity and Islam (Islam’s almost serene, uncompromising simplicity makes it in my opinion the kind of opposite pole from Hinduism)

Or as Contarini put it:

If you want simplicity, Islam is a much better option than Christianity. That’s why I find Islam by far the least appealing and interesting of the major world religions

Yeah, same here. Well, I find it a little more appealing than New Age wishy-washy nonsense, but it’s the least appealing to me if we stick to the big, famous ones.

Reality is pretty obviously confusing and paradoxical. I expect any religion worth its salt to be equally confusing and paradoxical. Otherwise I suspect that it has little to do with reality.

Amen! I couldn’t agree with you more strongly.

And in that regard, no religion can truly compare with Christianity and Hinduism. I understand perfectly why C.S. Lewis narrowed it down to those two before finally making his choice.

 

[Ahimsa]

Interesting! Hinduism is notoriously tricky to navigate, especially to a western mind.

Still, are you sure pantheism must have the meaning you ascribe to it? My understanding is that pantheism does not deny the existence of “non-material reality” but rather asserts that that very distinction - material and spiritual - is, well, immaterial. I don’t think pantheism needs to focus on the physical components of the universe (matter and energy specifically) as much as you make it.

“Everything is composed of matter/energy” sounds like materialism to me, which I suppose would be easy to confuse with pantheism since both collapse or conflate the supposed difference between the world and the divine (pantheism by identifying the former with the latter and materialism by identifying the latter with the former).

The standard, Western definition of pantheism is pretty simple: the material universe is the only “God” there is. Wikipedia gets this definition of “pantheism” correct. Pantheism, thus, gives the material-only universe a “spiritual” feeling by placing the label “God” upon it – but this “God” is simply the matter/energy universe that is now seen to be deserving of reverence and communion.

Someone who is simply a materialist, would not necessarily give reverence to nature, nor seek communion with nature.

For clarity’s sake I checked to see what the wikipedia article on pantheism has to say, and I found that it claims one of the Upanishads’ “Great Sayings” claims that “This whole universe is Brahman, from Brahman to a clod of earth." But I can’t verify this, since it doesn’t list a source. Do you know if that’s a genuine quote?

You have to understand Brahman by reading all the statements about Brahman. It’s true that the Upanishads often say that “Food is Brahman” (very Eucharistic, eh?), “The Cosmos is Brahman”, etc., but they don’t mean that the cosmos exhausts what Brahman is, or that the cosmos is the only form that Brahman can take.

These statements have to be balanced with statements that point to Brahman’s utter transcendence of the material cosmos:

From the Avadhuta Gita 6:8

“Space, time, water, fire, earth,
constituting the world,
are a mere mirage [that is, not as Real as Brahman, which is Unchanging].
In truth the One, imperishable,
ever blissful, alone exists.
There is neither cloud nor water in It.”

Understanding Brahman requires realizing two, seemingly paradoxical, things: (1) knowing that the universe is not-different from, is one with, Brahman; (2) and knowing that the universe is different from, not to be simply equated with, Brahman.

 

[rossum]

I’m absolutely fascinated by the way in which what you just said reminds me of the epistemology of the philosopher Immanuel Kant!

Others have noticed the same. T.R.V. Murti’s “The Central Philosophy of Buddhism” looks at the relation between Kant and Madhyamika Buddhism in great detail.

By the way, rossum, as I’ve been scanning this thread, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your responses. I know you’ve had to put up with a great lack of nuance throughout from many replies, and I’m grateful you stuck with it. I’ve learned some things about Buddhism along the way.

Buddhism is a missionary religion. We don’t knock on people’s doors. But when people knock on our doors …

rossum

 

[Sufjon]

Well, the actions in question (Ahimsa asked about this, so I’m responding to both posts together) were things like striking an opponent on the legs, attacking him when his chariot was stuck in the mud, and generally behaving ruthlessly. Certain conventions were agreed to before the battle started, but Krishna consistently urged the heroes to break them when necessary in order to win. Whether this counts as “teaching evil” I’m not sure–but it does seem that in Hinduism ethics are seen primarily in terms of social codes. I am willing to be shown wrong on this. (You jump to conclusions way too quickly, it seems to me. The order of the universe will not collapse if you fail to make decisive judgments every minute.)

I find this troubling. But then, folks who have the Book of Joshua and other similar texts in our Scriptures should be careful about pointing fingers. The command to massacre whole populations certainly raises different ethical problems than an injunction to break agreed-upon military conventions, but it’s hard to see that the ethical problems are less troubling!

Edwin

If you are referring to the Mahabharata war, who then is the enemy who is to be ruthlessly dealt with in the battle of Kurukshetra?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Tomcmaj]

Ok, so I skipped over 24 pages of replies just so I could put in my two cents!



I know nothing about Hinduism, but a fair bit about Christianity, Catholicism and Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism (there are probably as many different Buddhist sects as there are Christian sects).

There are remarkable similarities between Buddhism and Christianity. The most important similarity for me is the Holy Spirit. For Christianity, the Holy Spirit is something that one embraces, something one allows to enter ones heart. In Buddhism, the “Holy Spirit” is something that you recognize in your soul once you go through the exercise of cleansing your mind/spirit of everyday desires.

One is an action of bringing in from the outside, another is an action of self-cleansing in order to recognize what is already there!

:getholy:

 

[JMartyr73340]

Christianity is an orthodoxy - right belief.
rossum

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me. *Right action *is a direct result right belief. Our beliefs dictate our actions.

The details of belief in heavens, gods, hells etc. are not particularly important in Buddhism. What is important is to avoid evil, to cultivate good and to meditate.

This is a belief.

 

[JMartyr73340]

Christianity is an orthodoxy - right belief. Buddhism is an orthopraxy - right action. rossum

I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me. *Right action *is a direct result of right belief. People act on their beliefs.

The details of belief in heavens, gods, hells etc. are not particularly important

Technically, saying the “details of these things are not important" is a belief (a position) about them; one that has profound implications.

 

[JMartyr73340]

Buddhism is simple:

To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas

Christianity is an orthodoxy - right belief. Buddhism is an orthopraxy - right action. The details of belief in heavens, gods, hells etc. are not particularly important in Buddhism. What is important is to avoid evil, to cultivate good and to meditate.

rossum
​

Technically, saying the “details of these things are not important" is a belief (a position) about them. And it’s one that has profound implications. Our beliefs (all of them) dictate our actions. What you believe about the afterlife will have a profound effect on how you act in this life.

The statement “avoid evil” points to an objective moral standard that is not relative and that can only have been created by God. But if God created these morals, then clearly he is very concerned that we *know them * and obey them. Also, it makes sense that if God were to make such rules, there would be consequences for breaking them. We don’t focus on these questions, they logically follow from statements like “avoid evil”. Hence, we just go deeper.​

 

[benedictus2]

Buddhism is simple:To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

• Dhammapada 14:5Some of the problems in this discussion is of people talking past one another because they work from different assumptions. Christians ask questions about things that are important in Christianity but of little relevance to Buddhism, and vice versa.

Christianity is an orthodoxy - right belief. Buddhism is an orthopraxy - right action. The details of belief in heavens, gods, hells etc. are not particularly important in Buddhism. What is important is to avoid evil, to cultivate good and to meditate.

rossum

Just a quick answer on this one. I will address the other posts in the weekend.

Do Good and avoid evil. In a world that is deceptive, in a world where one is unable to to know what is true, then how does one know what to do and to avoid? How does one know good and evil?

Second… Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy go together. Practice follows from the doctrine. What we hold to be true is what we will do. If we hold it to be true that the unborn child is nothing more than a mass of cells, then we can get rid of this mass of cells when it suits us.

Christianity is both - Orthopraxy and Orthodoxy. Right doctrine informs right practice. One cannot practice what is right if one does not know through correct teaching what is right.