Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[arunsebastian]

In the holy book of Hindu (RIGVEDA) it mention about PRAJAPATHI in many places. Prajapathi means (leader of the people or savior) and this also mention in other holy book SAMAVEDA as Yeesha Masiha (JESUS CHRIST). In India we used the name YESHUVEA (hebrew der) instead of Jesus(Lisus Greek der). You can see this in Wikipedia.
Prajapathi in many context is similar to the Jesus. It also say about the savior, punishment, prophecy…but Vedas is used mainly by the Brahmins in the Hindu community(higher cast). But the Hindu pundits deny this argument.
But the fact is that Jesus Christ is the living god and you don’t want to dig up the past to believe in Jesus, just pray to him and he will reveal himself. We can see millions of miracles happening in his name, the only thing he is asking is to stay away from the sins and obey the commands.
“Ask, and you will receive;seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. For every one who asks will receive, and anyone who seeks will find, and the door will be opened to him who knocks.”(Mt 7:7,8)

""Take care; be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducee s(Mt 16:6).
The world will tell you every belief is same and betray you. How you can say that every religion is same. We need to respect the belief of every individual, doesn’t mean to accept their belief.

The stone which the builders rejected as worthless turned out to be the most important of all.(Lk 20:17).
Faith is totally different form Fictions…

 

[rossum]

If a just person who is undergoing suffering now is due to his evil deeds in the past, then don’t you think it is unfair since the person suffering now is not the same person who did the bad deed in the past?

Do Christians now suffer by living in a fallen world because of Adam’s sin in the past? Are the people who are suffering now the same as the Adam who sinned?

In Buddhism the person who is put in jail for murder is not the same as the person who committed the murder - we change throughout our lifetimes. There is no fundamental difference with the change between lifetimes, we are still part of the same continuum.

Furthermore, how can he be said to be paying for the evils done in a past life when when he doesn’t even know his past life.

“Your Honour, I was so drunk that night that I can now no longer remember crashing my car and killing the victim. Because I can no longer remember what I did you have to declare me innocent.”

A person is not the soul alone, he is both body and soul and you can’t split the two.

Buddhism does not have any souls, they are explicitly denied:“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

• Dhammapada 20:7

At his stage, with earth being so many billion years old, every single living thing would already be at a stage of multiple re-births. Which means that we are all now paying for the errors in our past life, but what good is that when we don’t even know our past lives. We don’t even know the error we are supposed to have done and supposed to be paying for.

If you wish to remember your past lives, the instructions are in the Visuddhimagga, Chapter 13, paragraph 22.

rossum

 

[Sufjon]

Okay, so you accept (even just as a working hypothesis) that Jesus did say that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth.

Hi Benedictus: That is my understanding.

In another chapter (Matthew 16) He says that the gates of heaven will not prevail and that He was building His Church upon Peter.

I have read that passage many times. It has been read that way by people who see it as support for apostolic succession and the foundation of a particular church . But if you look at the context of the conversation, and are looking for some level of real spirituality in Jesus, you might see something different. I will go through this passage point by point, in the way I see it:

**What Jesus Said: **Jesus had just asked Peter who he thought Jesus was. Simon
answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus replied, “I tell
you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”

Sufjon’s understanding of that: Jesus told Simon that he had spoken the truth, and
the truth Simon had just spoken (that Jesus was the Messiah) would be the rock on
which He would build His church. And since Simon was the one who spoke that truth,
he would call him Cephas (Peter) “The Rock” because he had spoken the truth that was
the rock on which His church would be built.

What Jesus said: “…and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

**-Sufjon’s understanding of that: **In other words, the gates of hell will not prevail
against this truth.

What Jesus said: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”

-Sufjon’s understanding of that: He is saying that He will reveal certain truths to
Peter that if followed correctly, will unlock the kingdom of heaven within you.

What Jesus said: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever
you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

-Sufjon’s understanding of that: Whatever you remain attached to in this life will
follow you to the next, and will remain an impediment to you in the form of karma and
samskara (habit and proclivities). Likewise, whatever attachments and desires you are
able to free yourself of in this life you will be free of in the next. Either way, it is up to
you.

Summary: Now let’s read it all at once: “Simon says that you are the Messiah.” Jesus Says “yeah, that’s right – that is the truth, and this truth is the rock on which I will build my church. I am the Messiah. Since you Simon are the one who spoke this truth, I will call you The Rock. The gates of hell will not prevail against this truth. Now, Peter I will show you some truths. He who hears these truths and follows them will unlock the kingdom of heaven within themselves, therefore, they are the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. But remember, whatever you are not able to let go of in this lifetime, you will drag with you into the next to be dealt with or worked out another time. Whatever you are able to let go of in this lifetime you will be free of in the next."

Simple, right? Just as plausible, and perhaps even more sensible from a spiritual perspective than the standard understanding. Suddenly, Jesus seems deeper, like you might expect God to be.

If the Church got the Bible wrong then how do we know that he did promise to send the Holy Spirit. Perhaps John’s Gospel should not be there.

I assume that He said it, but it doesn’t mean that what developed from it is what He was talking about. The Church as we know it may have been an unrelated development. My sense is that He probably meant more of a following, evidenced by the fact that He never so much as took care to put two stones together to build anything earthly. What we ended up with was quite earthly in it’s nature. Councils, buildings, hierarchies, rituals, dogma, and so on. To me, just me me mind you, that doesn’t look a lot like the handiwork of the man Jesus whose words and acts I have read about.

Secondly, we have what we call the development of doctrine. As heresies arise, we see the Church countering these heresies and that is why we had the Councils to combat these heresies.

So, does the fact that someone was the first to successfully convince everyone that someone else is a heretic necessarily make them the ones who were right, or is it possible that they were just more vocal, aggressive and more organized, whilst others spent their time on the spiritual aspects of the new following? After all, some pretty ungodly things have been done to people who have been labelled heretics by the more organized entities that arose from the tussle. If that is the case, then it’s might follow that the atrocities committed against heretics some 1,600 years later were guided by the Holy Spirit, which I don;t think is likely. Rising up against heresies seems to be spiritually dangerous ground. So, maybe there is room to consider that the guidance Jesus was talking about pertained to more spiritual matters than organizational considerations.

Thirdly the point about there being no churches like we have now is absurd. The Church that Jesus built was not mean to remain a seed, it was supposed to grow become a tree with many branches.

Perhaps we could entertain the idea that It was already part of a tree with many branches before it even got started. Christianity in itself could well be a branch if you look at the contiguous nature of the whole.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[benedictus2]

rossum:
Do Christians now suffer by living in a fallen world because of Adam’s sin in the past? Are the people who are suffering now the same as the Adam who sinned?

In Buddhism the person who is put in jail for murder is not the same as the person who committed the murder - we change throughout our lifetimes. There is no fundamental difference with the change between lifetimes, we are still part of the same continuum.
That is a different concept all together. In Christian teaching we are suffering because of the fallen nature of man which Adam and Eve brought about. That is not quite the same as the example we are discussing where the man is supposed to be suffering for his sins in **his **(not someone else’s) past life.
You said that the just man (i.e, the person himself) is suffering because of the things that he did in another lifetime. The problem is the person who did that in the other lifetime is not himself. So therefore it is not himself that is suffering. Perhaps his soul according to your theology but man is more than just soul.

“Your Honour, I was so drunk that night that I can now no longer remember crashing my car and killing the victim. Because I can no longer remember what I did you have to declare me innocent.”

That again is not the same. It is the same person who did it even though he may not remember it.

Buddhism does not have any souls, they are explicitly denied:

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

• Dhammapada 20:7
  Which makes the teaching even more absurd. If there is no soul, and the body is obviously different, then how can one even say that this is the same one that lived before. No soul, different body, who is being punished then?

If you wish to remember your past lives, the instructions are in the Visuddhimagga, Chapter 13, paragraph 22.

And no one does. Those who recall their past lives are just made up.

As you yourself have pointed out, there is no soul, its not the same body so it can’t be your past life.

 

[Tomcmaj]

Not quite. Nirvana is a mere escape from suffering (unless I got that wrong).

Yes, you did get it wrong!



Elimination of desire, or at the very least, recognizing how desire gets in our way, is an important step towards nirvana. What that place is cannot be described (which is why the word “nothingness” is sometimes used), much like the Christian concept of heaven cannot be described.

:angel1:

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Benedictus: That is my understanding.

Good so we have a starting point.

What Jesus Said

: Jesus had just asked Peter who he thought Jesus was. Simon answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus replied, “I tell
you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”

Sufjon’s understanding of that: Jesus told Simon that he had spoken the truth, and
the truth Simon had just spoken (that Jesus was the Messiah) would be the rock on
which He would build His church. And since Simon was the one who spoke that truth,
he would call him Cephas (Peter) “The Rock” because he had spoken the truth that was
the rock on which His church would be built.
Not quite. Jesus spoke Aramaic. He said: You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church.
Translated into English: You are Rock and upon this rock, I will build my church.
The only way one can interpret the second rock as Peter’s the confession is if Jesus had said,: What you said is Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.
The second rock can only refer to the first rock and nothing else.

What Jesus said:

“…and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

-Sufjon’s understanding of that: In other words, the gates of hell will not prevail
against this truth.
Again not quite. Firstly, because of my explanation above. Secondly, look at the sentence.
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”
The “gates of hell…” was not even referencing the rock but rather the Church that was to built upon this rock.

You will need to do a lot of mental and linguistic gymnastics to make it say what you want it to say.

**What Jesus said: **

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”

-Sufjon’s understanding of that: He is saying that He will reveal certain truths to
Peter that if followed correctly, will unlock the kingdom of heaven within you.
Not quite. Jesus was a Jew and Peter was a Jew. This has to be read in the Jewish context of the giving of keys.
holytrinityparish.net/Links/Saint%20Peter%20and%20the%20Keys.pdf

**What Jesus said: **

“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever
you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
**
-Sufjon’s understanding of that:** Whatever you remain attached to in this life will
follow you to the next, and will remain an impediment to you in the form of karma and
samskara (habit and proclivities). Likewise, whatever attachments and desires you are
able to free yourself of in this life you will be free of in the next. Either way, it is up to
you.
Extremely unlikely since Jesus is a Jew and karma is not part of the Jewish faith.
Refer again to the link I provided above.

 

[benedictus2]

Summary: Now let’s read it all at once: “Simon says that you are the Messiah.” Jesus Says “yeah, that’s right – that is the truth, and this truth is the rock on which I will build my church. I am the Messiah. Since you Simon are the one who spoke this truth, I will call you The Rock. The gates of hell will not prevail against this truth. Now, Peter I will show you some truths. He who hears these truths and follows them will unlock the kingdom of heaven within themselves, therefore, they are the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. But remember, whatever you are not able to let go of in this lifetime, you will drag with you into the next to be dealt with or worked out another time. Whatever you are able to let go of in this lifetime you will be free of in the next."

Simple, right? Just as plausible, and perhaps even more sensible from a spiritual perspective than the standard understanding. Suddenly, Jesus seems deeper, like you might expect God to be.

There was a lot of mental gymnastic and gyrations required to enable that to be reconciled to the Jesus we know. Jesus is very deep. Your explanation does not make him any deeper but actually makes it shallow.

It is interesting that He also said that heavenly wisdom is revealed to the children not the wise.

It is because you dragged Him out of the Jewish milieu into which He was born that you are unable to comprehend him.

And this is the glorious fact, Jesus was not born in the Hindu religion but rather was born a Jew subject to the Law. That is just plain fact.
He did not come to fulfill Hinduism, He came to fulfill Judaism.

I will give a more detailed and correct interpretation of Matthew 16:18 later. I just need to find my earlier posts regarding this subject.

I assume that He said it, but it doesn’t mean that what developed from it is what He was talking about. The Church as we know it may have been an unrelated development.

Well that does not make sense. If you agree to the truth of the promise of the Holy Spirit, well that can only to be found in John not in the gnostic gospels.

If you doubt the Councils that canonized the Bible then, you doubt John. If you cannot accept John, then how can you accept that the Church is indeed guided by the Holy Spirit.

And if you accept John, then indeed the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and the doctrines, morals, ecclesiology that she teaches is a result of the guidance of the Holy Spirit which was a guidance into all truth.

My sense is that He probably meant more of a following, evidenced by the fact that He never so much as took care to put two stones together to build anything earthly.

And who said that the church is made of stone as in material stone?
The foundation of the Church are the apostles.

What we ended up with was quite earthly in it’s nature. Councils, buildings, hierarchies, rituals, dogma, and so on. To me, just me me mind you, that doesn’t look a lot like the handiwork of the man Jesus whose words and acts I have read about.

Only if viewed from the vantage point of someone who do not see the Mystical Body of Christ. It is earthly because - surprise, surprise, - God came to take on human form. Creation is beautiful. Matter is beautiful because it was created by God.

So, does the fact that someone was the first to successfully convince everyone that someone else is a heretic necessarily make them the ones who were right, or is it possible that they were just more vocal, aggressive and more organized, whilst others spent their time on the spiritual aspects of the new following?

That is only your assumption which comes from a very poor perspective tainted by Hindu belief.

I find it quite interesting what you are doing. Maybe Christ is finally moving your heart towards Christianity but you are fighting it so instead what you want is to Hindunize Christianty. Sorry but that is just totally untenable.

As I said above, since the Church was given the promise of the Holy Spirit then the way it developed was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore true. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the heresies were exposed and stamped out of the Church.

And this is your problem because you cannot have Christ without His Church. That is the only thing He left us with. He did not leave us a book. He left us the Church.

 

[benedictus2]

After all, some pretty ungodly things have been done to people who have been labelled heretics by the more organized entities that arose from the tussle.

The organized entities arose from the chaos. Well doesn’t that tell you something – from chaos, order.

If that is the case, then it’s might follow that the atrocities committed against heretics some 1,600 years later were guided by the Holy Spirit, which I don;t think is likely.

Well you see, if you pay close attention to the promise – the Holy Spirit is to guide the Church into truth not into goodness. And that is very interesting. Jesus did not say I am the good but He said I am the Truth.

The guidance is the guidance into truth. Because if the compass is correct, no matter how far you may wander from the path, you will always find the right way back.
But if the direction is the one that is wrong, then there is not much hope.
The direction is correct, some people refuse to follow the direction. But so long as that direction remains true, then later on, these same people can still find the way back.

Rising up against heresies seems to be spiritually dangerous ground.

NOT fighting heresies is an extremely dangerous ground. It can lead people to error. The devil is the father of lies. Fighting heresies is fighting the seeds being sown by the father of lies.

So, maybe there is room to consider that the guidance Jesus was talking about pertained to more spiritual matters than organizational considerations.

It definitely was but not just the way you understand spiritual matters. Your understanding is opposed to the teaching of Jesus.
Many Catholics buy into Hinduism and Buddhism because it is a feel good religion that does not ask much of them. Christ demands our unconditional allegiance and that is hard.

Perhaps we could entertain the idea that It was already part of a tree with many branches before it even got started. Christianity in itself could well be a branch if you look at the contiguous nature of the whole.

No we can’t entertain that idea because that is totally incompatible with Christianity.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, you did get it wrong!



Elimination of desire, or at the very least, recognizing how desire gets in our way, is an important step towards nirvana. What that place is cannot be described (which is why the word “nothingness” is sometimes used), much like the Christian concept of heaven cannot be described.

:angel1:

Why does one want to eliminate desire? Is it not because desire is linked to suffering?

What is wrong with desire if not that it leads to suffering. (At least in the Buddhist perspective). Butt then again I may have got that wrong too.

 

[Tomcmaj]

Why does one want to eliminate desire? Is it not because desire is linked to suffering?
Indeed!

 

[benedictus2]

Indeed!

Therefore I got it right.

 

[rossum]

That is a different concept all together. In Christian teaching we are suffering because of the fallen nature of man which Adam and Eve brought about. That is not quite the same as the example we are discussing where the man is supposed to be suffering for his sins in **his **(not someone else’s) past life.

How is it not the same? I am not Adam, yet you tell me I am suffering because of something Adam did. That is what you are accusing Buddhism doing, punishing one person for another person’s sins.

You said that the just man (i.e, the person himself) is suffering because of the things that he did in another lifetime. The problem is the person who did that in the other lifetime is not himself. So therefore it is not himself that is suffering.

You are trying to use the Christian definition of “person” in a Buddhist context. A Buddhist “person” covers the whole series of lifetimes and the whole set of causal changes within each of those lifetimes. In Buddhist terms, it is the same person that is punished.

That again is not the same. It is the same person who did it even though he may not remember it.

It is the same person over many lifetimes in Buddhism. As you point out, memory is not important here.

Which makes the teaching even more absurd. If there is no soul, and the body is obviously different, then how can one even say that this is the same one that lived before. No soul, different body, who is being punished then?

Our bodies are different from second to second over a single lifetime. You can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and it is not the same you. There is no fixed unchanging person; all of us are a stream of change, connected by cause and effect. Our current selves are the result of our past selves, and will in turn cause our future selves. Part of what is passed on from second to second is the karmic burden of our previous actions.

And no one does. Those who recall their past lives are just made up.

You are at liberty not to try remembering if you don’t want to. The instructions are available.

As you yourself have pointed out, there is no soul, its not the same body so it can’t be your past life.

They are the past lives which have causal influence on your present life. That is why you can remember them. I cannot remember your past lives, because your past lives did not causally influence my current life.

rossum

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Sufjon, I don’t think your interpretation of Matthew 16 can hold up to responsible scrutiny. On this matter at least I think benedictus2 actually raises two excellent points:

(a) Your interpretation really ought to do justice to the context of the Jewish concept of “keys to the kingdom” as reflected in Isaiah 22:22.

(b) Perhaps more importantly, this whole “working out whatever you carry with you into your next life” concept is inconsistent with the fact that, as benedictus2 points out, this whole karmic reincarnation scheme is quite inconsistent with Jesus’ Judaism. If reincarnation with all its implications were part of the faith that Jesus was raised in, the Book of Job might have had quite a different ending, right? But God doesn’t inform Job that he was a heartless SOB in a previous life: the problem of the suffering of the innocent stands boldly unanswered by the transcedent divine.

(As such, I do not therefore find your interpretation of that passage more complex/profound than the Catholic interpretation as you claimed it was, although I fully admit of course that that doesn’t make it wrong)

Forgive me if I have distorted your claims or view in any way, and I welcome any response or clarification you wish to give.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Also, rossum, I apologize if I missed it, but can you explain or reiterate for me what it is that experiences multiple lives in Buddhism? I know it’s not our souls, since we have different concepts of that. I don’t want to impose my Christian beliefs onto Buddhist teaching on life after death. Is it perpetuations of desire alone that are reincarnated? If not, what?

Sorry if I’m asking the question in the wrong way: as I said before, I admit that Buddhist teaching on life after death requires me to stretch my brain, and questions based on things that stretch my brain are easy to botch when put into words…

 

[TheAtheist]

Sorry if I’m asking the question in the wrong way: as I said before, I admit that Buddhist teaching on life after death requires me to stretch my brain, and questions based on things that stretch my brain are easy to botch when put into words…

it actually depends on the type of Buddhist Rossum is. The Theravada and Madyamika position are well beyond my means to give a proper accounting of - that goes to Rossum.

The Yogacara position is something that looks at lot easieroto understand, esp. for those who have worked in the natural sciences.

Essentially those particular buddhists posit a substrate consciousness - as in consciousness itself is a fundamental part of reality in the manner that matter is. The substrate, which they use a metaphor of a seed, is “cultivated” by one’s actions and upon termination of the life cycle, that substrate is shunted into a new life determined by one’s actions. The effects of one’s actions somehow accrue in that substrate, but not one’s memories.

That model runs counter to the ideas implicit not only in your religion, but the Graeco-Roman philosophical view. Plato and Aristotle describe a Soul with a Self, a “true essence” that is fundamental and unchanging. It may have always been this way which is Plato’s view, or the Self is generated by the Hylomorphic process of embodying a Soul.

All 3 Buddhist views deny that the Self is that fundamental. They would call it illusory, in the manner that a chair is only a chair in the contingent sense, In a fundamental sense, its a composition of atoms which can be further subdivided into smaller particles.

 

[rossum]

Also, rossum, I apologize if I missed it, but can you explain or reiterate for me what it is that experiences multiple lives in Buddhism? I know it’s not our souls, since we have different concepts of that. I don’t want to impose my Christian beliefs onto Buddhist teaching on life after death. Is it perpetuations of desire alone that are reincarnated? If not, what?

Sorry if I’m asking the question in the wrong way: as I said before, I admit that Buddhist teaching on life after death requires me to stretch my brain, and questions based on things that stretch my brain are easy to botch when put into words…

The only thing that experiences the multiple lives is the multiple lives. There is no permanent substrate passing through all the lives. The Hindu version has been likened to beads on a string; the beads are the lives with the string as the soul passing through all the lives. The Buddhist version is beads on a chain. Each link in the chain connects to the previous link and to the next link. No single link runs the full length of the chain.

The chain is composed of parts - the links. Take away all the links and there is no chain remaining.

The links in the chain are linked by cause and effect. What we are now is caused by what we were in the past. What we will be in the future is caused by what we are now.

What we call a “person” is just the current link in the chain, or sometimes, by extension, the chain.

rossum

 

[Tomcmaj]

Therefore I got it right.

Uh, nope.

Nirvana is much more than absence of suffering.

 

[Sufjon]

Why does one want to eliminate desire? Is it not because desire is linked to suffering?

What is wrong with desire if not that it leads to suffering. (At least in the Buddhist perspective). Butt then again I may have got that wrong too.

Hi Benedictus: Eastern ideas on this maybe hard to follow. It is not the elimination of joy and suffering. It is being released from yearning for one and aversion to the other. It is a matter of taking them as they come. Being in the moment that you’re in and experiencing it fully. Desire leads to attachment and attachment is the root of all suffering. I think Jesus understood that and yes I know He wasn’t a sahdu, but being God, He would know what a sadhu knows. Anyway, you still enjoy things and suffer through things. You just do them more fully and are fully present for each. If you are longing for something that happened before or may happen in the future, or languishing over the past or the future, you are not fully in the moment that you’re in. It’s a lot of work learning to be in the moment that you’re in. Once you can do it, you are living more fully and less attached. Less attached equals less suffering. Once you are free from all desire, you achieve moksha, which is like nirvana. Basically, it’s freedom. liberation and joy.

BTW, I will answer your huge post on Peter when I get a few hours off.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Ahimsa]

Nibbanam paramam sukham: Nirvana is the Highest Happiness.

 

[Tomcmaj]

Desire leads to attachment and attachment is the root of all suffering. I think Jesus understood that and yes I know He wasn’t a sahdu, but being God, He would know what a sadhu knows.

I think many Buddhists would go further and say that Jesus was a bodhisattva (a person who is able to reach nirvana but delays doing so out of compassion in order to save suffering beings).