Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity fitting together?

[Sufjon]

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).

i Tomcmaj - yes, I think you’re right.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

Interesting - thanks, Atheist.

That model runs counter to the ideas implicit not only in your religion, but the Graeco-Roman philosophical view … 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.

Yes, of that I am fully aware.

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

Thanks, rossum. I think I understand - at least a little bit. Is this true lack of individual spiritual continuity consistent, though, with statements like “What we are now is caused by what we were in the past”? It seems from your explanation like there really is no “we” that, throughout the process, can be justifiably spoken of as a distinct unit… how come you sometimes use sentences like that, or even speak of previous lives, which might give posters with no background in any of this stuff reason to assume - in their ignorance of Buddhist teaching - that you believe in a soul in a Christian, Aristotelian, or Hindu sense?

 

[rossum]

Thanks, rossum. I think I understand - at least a little bit. Is this true lack of individual spiritual continuity consistent, though, with statements like “What we are now is caused by what we were in the past”? It seems from your explanation like there really is no “we” that, throughout the process, can be justifiably spoken of as a distinct unit… how come you sometimes use sentences like that, or even speak of previous lives, which might give posters with no background in any of this stuff reason to assume - in their ignorance of Buddhist teaching - that you believe in a soul in a Christian, Aristotelian, or Hindu sense?

I mainly use conventional language for convenience, it is easier to say “we” than “the set of all life continua currently living on Earth as Homo sapiens”. I agree that it may be misunderstood, but then any attempt to describe the situation would probably be misunderstood due to people’s assumptions. All of us overlay things onto our raw sense data. An arachnophobe will overlay fear onto the raw perception of a spider. The fear is not part of the raw sense perception but is part of the overlay from the person’s mind. Anything I write, no matter how detailed, will always be subject to overlays from the reader’s minds. So I usually say “we”.

rossum

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I mainly use conventional language for convenience, it is easier to say “we” than “the set of all life continua currently living on Earth as Homo sapiens”. I agree that it may be misunderstood, but then any attempt to describe the situation would probably be misunderstood due to people’s assumptions. All of us overlay things onto our raw sense data. An arachnophobe will overlay fear onto the raw perception of a spider. The fear is not part of the raw sense perception but is part of the overlay from the person’s mind. Anything I write, no matter how detailed, will always be subject to overlays from the reader’s minds. So I usually say “we”.

rossum

Okay, I was just curious.

 

[kun21]

good idea,hope you can write more article

---

Windows 7 Home Premium
Buy MS office 2007

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Here’s the difference: Adam’s sin weakened us but it is still us who sin personally. If we end up in hell it is for our personal sins not Adam’s.
In your theology however, you are saying that Person B is suffering in this life for the personal sins he commited in the previous life. But in the previous life he was not Person B, it was Person Bs soul but a different body, so a totally different person altogether.

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.

Aaah that is a valid comment. So you are saying that all these say 10bodies and one soul is one person? So if you you’ve gone from goat to pig to tree, to man, to dog, to man, to horse, to woman - all that is one person?
Now, can you tell me in all honesty that you believe that? That you are the same as the dog, goat, pig, and woman.

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

Okay. But to me that doesn’t make sense. No matter whether you say that that person is though different lifetimes, it isn’t the same person. The only thing that I suppose continues on is the soul. I mean if it is the same person, then would it not have the same personality or at the very least the same gender and genus? How can one call a dog a person?
I suppose what I need to understand here is how you understand soul. Or is there such a thing as soul.

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.

But of course it is the same you. You may be slightly older, slight changed in cells here and there but it is still you. It is not another person. This bonding of soul and body is still the same one.

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.

But not quite the drastic change that re-incarnation suggests. For example, the one who becomes a dog, how is that the same person when that is not even of the same genus. Or the one who becomes a plant.

They are the past lives which have causal influence on your present life

But those lives are not yours for the simple fact that they were not you. They were someone else

That is why you can remember them. I cannot remember your past lives, because your past lives did not causally influence my current life.

Actually, that is just the point. You can’t.

Those retrocognition stories are highly suspect.

This is purely anedoctal but there was a buddhist who converted to Catholicism and for a long while , even though he had converted still believed in re-incarnation because he said he remembered his past life and he liked his past.

After a while, he put this through analysis and lot of spiritual searching. He came to the realization that this was not his past life but rather what the devil has whispered to him. He realized that this was diabolical rather than of God.

So sorry but stories of retrocognition are highly suspect.

 

[benedictus2]

Uh, nope.

Nirvana is much more than absence of suffering.

Okay.

Let’s retrace.

You said I was wrong when I said nirvana is the absence of suffering.

According to you nirvana is the absence of desire.

But you agreed with me that the point of the absence of desire is so that there will be no suffering.

Ergo, Nirvana is the absence of suffering through the absence of desire.

I suppose to sum it up, Nirvana is not MORE than the absence of suffering. It is LESS than the absence of suffering because it seems like an ascent into nothing.

 

[benedictus2]

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

Actually I do get that. But saying that, that is similar to what Jesus said is not quite correct.

Jesus taught one must not seek mammon but must seek God. Attachment is good if the attachment is to God (Seek first the Kingdom of God). This is how he was able to endure the suffering, because He desired only God’s will.

The teaching on detachment in Christian theology is detachment from this world but not detachment from God. Being in the present moment is being aware of being in the presence of God.

As Ravi Zacharias pointed out, does the cessation of desire include the cessarion of desire to see the cessation of evil (or something along those lines).

One must not be freed from desiring the Good.

 

[benedictus2]

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

But isn’t true joy the attainment of our deepest desire?

Take your time with the reply. I am actually hoping that all the threads I am in will just end as I am finding it difficult to find the time to reply.

 

[rossum]

If we end up in hell it is for our personal sins not Adam’s.

Which neatly brings up the problem of what happens to unbaptised babies who die before they are old enough to sin.

In your theology however, you are saying that Person B is suffering in this life for the personal sins he commited in the previous life. But in the previous life he was not Person B, it was Person Bs soul but a different body, so a totally different person altogether.

You are looking too broadly. I am not the person that was born all those years ago, there are many differences. I am not the person that got up this morning, there are differences. I am not the same person I was one second ago, there are differences. The Buddhist idea of “person” is very different. All the different versions of ‘me’ are part of the same causally related continuum. My relation to those previous lives is the same as my relation to the baby that was born many years ago.

Now, can you tell me in all honesty that you believe that? That you are the same as the dog, goat, pig, and woman.

Of course I am not the same, but neither am I the same as I was at three years old. All of us are part of the same continuum.

Okay. But to me that doesn’t make sense.

Probably not. You appear to be trying to fit Buddhist ideas into Christian categories. Christianity seems to place a large gap between humans and other living things. Buddhism does not have such a gap. All are soulless and all are subject to karma. We have all been animals in the past and may be again in future.

I suppose what I need to understand here is how you understand soul. Or is there such a thing as soul.

One of the basics of Buddhism is that there is no permanent unchanging soul. All such ideas are incorrect. Everything changes and is causally related, hence all we are is a changing causally related continuum. Ideas of a permanent soul are just another delusion that needs to be seen through before we attain enlightenment.

But of course it is the same you. You may be slightly older, slight changed in cells here and there but it is still you. It is not another person. This bonding of soul and body is still the same one.

Buddhism does not recognise a soul. Of the five components that make up a human being, all change over time just as you have indicated with our bodies.

But those lives are not yours for the simple fact that they were not you. They were someone else

They are as much me as that newborn baby was me.

Actually, that is just the point. You can’t.

Most Buddhists don’t bother. The instructions are available if you decide you want to try.

rossum

 

[benedictus2]

Which neatly brings up the problem of what happens to unbaptised babies who die before they are old enough to sin.

We never said they are in hell.

You are looking too broadly. I am not the person that was born all those years ago, there are many differences. I am not the person that got up this morning, there are differences. I am not the same person I was one second ago, there are differences. The Buddhist idea of “person” is very different. All the different versions of ‘me’ are part of the same causally related continuum. My relation to those previous lives is the same as my relation to the baby that was born many years ago.

I read an explanation (I think by Sufjon) of likening a person to a string of beads. The soul runs through all the beads, each bead is a person’s past life.

But as I have explained, the person - you - are one of those beads right now. You cannot both be string of beads and the one particular bead on that string. Each bead at each point in connection with the string is one specific person. The next bead is a different bead altogether.

If that was a closed string as say in a necklace, where did the bad karma start that one needs to atone for?

If if is not a closed string, what was the karma that was being atoned for by the very first birth?

Of course I am not the same, but neither am I the same as I was at three years old. All of us are part of the same continuum.

Again, that is just growth. You are not a different person. You have just developed. The other person in your “past lives” are completely different to you. They are not a development of you.

Probably not. You appear to be trying to fit Buddhist ideas into Christian categories. Christianity seems to place a large gap between humans and other living things.

How about because there is a large gap?

Buddhism does not have such a gap. All are soulless and all are subject to karma. We have all been animals in the past and may be again in future.

So you are saying that the dog and pig that was before is the same you?

One of the basics of Buddhism is that there is no permanent unchanging soul. All such ideas are incorrect. Everything changes and is causally related, hence all we are is a changing causally related continuum. Ideas of a permanent soul are just another delusion that needs to be seen through before we attain enlightenment.

But if the soul changes, then how can it be the same soul. If it is a different soul, then why should it be atoning for a karma that is supposed to be its own when it is a different soul altogether.

Buddhism does not recognise a soul. Of the five components that make up a human being, all change over time just as you have indicated with our bodies.

If it is not the same you, then why should you incur karma for something that was not done by you.

They are as much me as that newborn baby was me.

The new born baby was you and we can prove it was you. Same DNA. But the dog?

Most Buddhists don’t bother. The instructions are available if you decide you want to try.

I doubt that highly. Whatever comes up from this exercise - that you conclude to be your past life - is to my mind a whispering of the evil one. I would not dabble in that. That would be the height folly, and highly dangerous. Something I pray that God protect me from.

Glory be to Father , and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit
As it was in the beginning is now and every shall be world without end. Amen.

 

[Tomcmaj]

You said I was wrong when I said nirvana is the absence of suffering.

According to you nirvana is the absence of desire.

But you agreed with me that the point of the absence of desire is so that there will be no suffering.

Ergo, Nirvana is the absence of suffering through the absence of desire.

I suppose to sum it up, Nirvana is not MORE than the absence of suffering. It is LESS than the absence of suffering because it seems like an ascent into nothing.

Hi benedictus2!

It is an ascent into “no thing that can be described in a language that you, me, or anyone else can understand”. That’s Nirvana. (Jesus basically says the same thing - Heaven is indescribable.)

 

[benedictus2]

Hi benedictus2!

It is an ascent into “no thing that can be described in a language that you, me, or anyone else can understand”. That’s Nirvana. (Jesus basically says the same thing - Heaven is indescribable.)

But we do have a description for heaven. It is a union with God. Heaven is the fulfillment of our deepest desire.

 

[rossum]

I read an explanation (I think by Sufjon) of likening a person to a string of beads. The soul runs through all the beads, each bead is a person’s past life.

In the Buddhist version there is not a string but a chain. The chain is composed of links. Each link connects to the previous link and to the next link. No single link runs for the entire length of the chain. Remove all the links and there is no chain left; there is nothing left behind when all the links and beads are gone.

But as I have explained, the person - you - are one of those beads right now. You cannot both be string of beads and the one particular bead on that string. Each bead at each point in connection with the string is one specific person. The next bead is a different bead altogether.

I have two candles, one is lit while the other is not. There is a flame on the first candle. I use the first candle to light the second candle. Then I blow out the first candle while leaving the second candle alight.

Is the flame on the second candle the same as the flame on the first candle? Is it different?

If that was a closed string as say in a necklace, where did the bad karma start that one needs to atone for?

The chain is not closed.

If if is not a closed string, what was the karma that was being atoned for by the very first birth?

No beginning can be seen to the series. What is the smallest real number larger than zero?

Again, that is just growth. You are not a different person.

We use different definitions of “person”. Buddhism sees change as primary and stasis as merely apparent. Hence the change takes precedence; I am not the same person as I was age three.

So you are saying that the dog and pig that was before is the same you?

No. See my illustration of the two candle flames above.

But if the soul changes, then how can it be the same soul.

Correct. If something changes then it is not the same.

If it is a different soul, then why should it be atoning for a karma that is supposed to be its own when it is a different soul altogether.

Buddhism does not think in terms of souls. It thinks in terms of causally connected continua. There is a causal connection between me and my past lives that does not exist between me and your past lives. You inherit your karma from your causal continuum while I inherit my karma from my causal continuum.

The new born baby was you and we can prove it was you. Same DNA.

Very similar DNA, but not the same. Part of our immune system alters our DNA in response to infection (it is why we get immunity after infection or a jab). Cancer can also be caused by local changes in our DNA.

Glory be to Father , and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit
As it was in the beginning is now and every shall be world without end. Amen.

May all living beings avoid greed.
May all living beings avoid hatred.
May all living beings avoid delusion.

May all living beings attain peace.
May all living beings attain happiness.
May all living beings attain nirvana.

rossum

 

[MatteoRicci]

Probably not. You appear to be trying to fit Buddhist ideas into Christian categories. Christianity seems to place a large gap between humans and other living things. Buddhism does not have such a gap. All are soulless and all are subject to karma. We have all been animals in the past and may be again in future.

Well didn’t take too long to get to this point in the back-and-forth…

Much like Sufjon’s attempt to “Hinduize” Christianity as Contarini pointed out, this is about to run into the “fundamental categories of belief” dilemma…

 

[Tomcmaj]

But we do have a description for heaven. It is a union with God. Heaven is the fulfillment of our deepest desire.

Hmm. Sounds a lot like Nirvana to me!



One famous description is that existence is like water in a fast flowing river crashing into a rock and sending up millions of tiny droplets, which fly on their own and fall back to become part of the river again. So, we come into being as droplets, and we return to be one with God.

As I said before, this is something that needs to be experienced rather than talked about.

 

[Laughing_Crow]

We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our
thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws
the cart.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our
thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with a pure mind
And happiness will follow you
As your shadow, unshakable.
“Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed
me.”
Live with such thoughts and you live in
hate.
“Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed
me.”
Abandon such thoughts, and live in
love.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
You too shall pass away.
Knowing this, how can you quarrel?
How easily the wind overturns a frail
tree.
Seek happiness in the senses,
Indulge in food and sleep,
And you too will be uprooted.
The wind cannot overturn a mountain.
Temptation cannot touch the man
Who is awake, strong and humble,
Who masters himself and minds the
dharma.
If a man’s thoughts are muddy,
If he is reckless and full of deceit,
How can he wear the yellow robe?
Whoever is master of his own nature,
Bright, clear and true,
He may indeed wear the yellow robe.
Mistaking the false for the true,
And the true for the false,
You overlook the heart
And fill yourself with desire.
See the false as false,
The true as true.
Look into your heart.
Follow your nature.
An unreflecting mind is a poor roof.
Passion, like the rain, floods the house.
But if the roof is strong, there is
shelter.
Whoever follows impure thoughts
Suffers in this world and the next.
In both worlds he suffers
And how greatly
When he sees the wrong he has done.
But whoever follows the dharma
Is joyful here and joyful there.
In both worlds he rejoices
And how greatly
When he sees the good he has done.
For great is the harvest in this world,
And greater still in the next.
However many holy words you read,
However many you speak,
What good will they do you
If you do not act upon them?
Are you a shepherd
Who counts another man’s sheep,
Never sharing the way?
Read as few words as you like,
And speak fewer.
But act upon the dharma.
Give up the old ways -
Passion, enmity, folly.
Know the truth and find peace.
Share the way.

That is the first chapter from the Dhammapada, a Buddhist scripture. I have already spoken with another member of the CAF community about this and he agrees that their are many similarities however pointed out what seperate Buddhism and Christianity is Buddhism places man and self in the center of everything instead of God.

The simple fact is many religions preach a similar message, be kind to others, do not do ill will, forgive your enemies etc. Instantly claiming something is wrong because it came from another source of thinking is what will make converting people hard. I remember when I came here with questions about the faith I was well received, not bashed because of my Nilhism and atheism. By instantly going “No your wrong” you are reinforcing the idea that christians are closed minded (unless of course it is in something where someone is blatently wrong)

 

[Tomcmaj]

Buddhism places man and self in the center of everything

I know a few million Buddhists who would disagree with that statement!

:yup:

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

One famous description is that existence is like water in a fast flowing river crashing into a rock and sending up millions of tiny droplets, which fly on their own and fall back to become part of the river again. So, we come into being as droplets, and we return to be one with God.

That analogy may work for some faiths - Hinduism? - but it is at the very least in some tension with the Christian adherence to Jewish notions of utter divine transcendence. If we are merely droplets of God - part of the same nature as He (the water of the river) - that is pantheism.

That is the first chapter from the Dhammapada, a Buddhist scripture. I have already spoken with another member of the CAF community about this and he agrees that their are many similarities however pointed out what seperate Buddhism and Christianity is Buddhism places man and self in the center of everything instead of God.

The simple fact is many religions preach a similar message, be kind to others, do not do ill will, forgive your enemies etc. Instantly claiming something is wrong because it came from another source of thinking is what will make converting people hard. I remember when I came here with questions about the faith I was well received, not bashed because of my Nilhism and atheism. By instantly going “No your wrong” you are reinforcing the idea that christians are closed minded (unless of course it is in something where someone is blatently wrong)

I agree, friend. It’s irritating and counterproductive to hear some Christians say things like, “X is a false religion.” Well, no. Most likely Christians will believe that X has some truth and some error… it’s a patronizing oversimplification to simply dismiss another religion entirely.

And I certainly agree that one thing Buddhism and Christianity have in common is indeed the injunction to be kind to others, harbor no ill will, live not for earthly pleasure and advancement, etc.

Still, those are pretty universal nuggets of spiritual wisdom. Buddhism and Christianity are alike in that regard simply because those moral truths are common to most sources of human wisdom. Generally speaking, religions (with maybe one major exception) share the same ethics, which is to be expected. Where they differ is in what makes each religion what it is, though - its underlying metaphysical presuppositions, principles, etc., and in the objective it lays out for its adherents (almost none of them stop simply at “do good to others,” as that is not an inherently religious goal).

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I know a few million Buddhists who would disagree with that statement!

:yup:

According to which sect of Buddhism would they base themselves on to disagree that statement? And is that sect, that your claiming millions are with, the final authority on Buddhist teachings?

Buddhism places “self” on the center because Buddhism believes salvation, or escaping Samsura, is obtained by letting go of “self”, and funny enough, by the actions of the self. So, is letting go of the self by actions of the self, a selfish thing? A Christian rebels against that line of thought, for a Christian believes salvation is given by the Grace of God by immersing the self in faith and works. A Buddhist believes in letting go of self and obtaining emptiness while a Christian offers ones “self” as a sacrificial offering to God and to make the self FULL of God’s Grace. One would seriously contradict oneself by being a Christian Budhhist, wouldn’t you agree?