Buddhism similarities

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Ok maybe this is a better way of thinking about the question. I feel Catholics and Buddhists are both following personal examples rather than Judaism which is rule based.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok maybe this is a better way of thinking about the question. I feel Catholics and Buddhists are both following personal examples rather than Judaism which is rule based.

Interesting perspective.

However, since Judaism is characterized by the Mosaic covenant, and Jesus instituted his New Covenant, wouldn’t you say that Christianity is as rule-based as Judaism is?

(I’m not saying that I agree that ‘rules’ are at the heart of either religious system – just playing devil’s advocate to your claim…)

 

[Shakuhachi]

Shakuhachi:

That is the main thrust of B and doing it through detachment (of everything including self).

So… according to Buddhism, when one reaches complete transcendence, does the individual self continue to exist?

If so, does the individual self recognize that creation is not reality?

When we die to self in Christ does the individual self still exist? Yes. But it is seen for what it is…a secondary reality, a lesser truth. B might just say that lesser truth is no truth at all.

 

[Shakuhachi]

But the rule of Jesus, his covenant is self transforming love. St Paul emphasized that talking about The Law.

 

[Gorgias]

When we die to self in Christ does the individual self still exist? Yes. But it is seen for what it is…a secondary reality, a lesser truth.

No. Christianity does not teach that the individual is a “lesser truth” or a “secondary reality”. The individual – created by God – is real and eternal.

B might just say that lesser truth is no truth at all.

I agree. Which, incidentally, demonstrates that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what Buddhism asserts and what Christianity asserts.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Then why does Jesus tell us we must die to self?

 

[Gorgias]

Then why does Jesus tell us we must die to self?

He doesn’t.

Actually, the quote you’re looking for is, “Then [Jesus] said to all, ‘If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.’” (Luke 9:23 – emphasis mine)

Others make the claim you cite, but it’s not literal. Rather, we must be selfless in our love and generosity to others. Only through that abandonment to love can we reflect the love of Jesus, who gave of himself in order that we might be saved.

More to the point, Jesus’ “sacrifice of self” was not a sacrifice unto non-existence, and neither is our embrace of his call to be selfless: our embrace of His teachings lead us to individual experience, as persons, in eternal life with Him.

 

[Shakuhachi]

And neither is the Buddhist talking about non existence.

They are like slipper fish. neither existence nor non-existence, nor neither, nor both. No language accurately describes reality.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Keep reading
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. Luke 9:24

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. John 12:24

 

[Shakuhachi]

The problem is language. When we talk about individual self we can only image the ego self that we live with daily. Do we have mush of a clue about our transcendent self? Our true self in Christ? Our eternal self that survives the death of the ego and its brain dependent psychology?

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

Sure it’s not like we don’t have rules but i feel there’s a nuance thats hard to define. In the Old Testament, severe punishment is dished out on earth for not following the law whilst Jesus prefers parables to teach the meaning of what he is saying than just a straight “thou shall not”. This nuance is epitomized in Matthew 19 where the rich man is following all the rules but Jesus shows him that there’s a convinction in his heart that he’s missing.

 

[Benadam]

God created me to do His will so if I am willing to lose my life then I will recieve life in abundance running over that is my life fulfilled ,My life fulfilled implies a will as God createded and perfected

I will as God created me to.,meaning now I will what God wills
What God wills is what I will What I will is
what God wills as one both acts pure
Both pure act. not potential acts of will. acts of will that are pure act

God will I will almost like the Trinity…or as close as can get

We find ourself in more abundance when we lose our self

 

[Benadam]

I think that’s God treating us differently as we mature in salvation history In the OT we are treated like child. In the NT we have matured…don’t need spanked, God talks to us now like a father to a more mature son

 

[Gorgias]

Keep reading

For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. Luke 9:24

What does it mean to “lose one’s life”, though? Especially in the context of the end result, which is that “one… will save it.” This is explicitly different than what Buddhism teaches.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. John 12:24

Are you a grain of wheat? Neither am I. So, it’s an analogy.

 

[Gorgias]

Our eternal self that survives the death of the ego and its brain dependent psychology

Here’s the thing, though: Christian theology makes the assertion that we regain a glorified body in the eschaton. Therefore, the ‘ego’ and the ‘brain’ are not annihilated, but will be reconstituted.

 

[Gorgias]

In the Old Testament, severe punishment is dished out on earth for not following the law

In the Old Testament, they did not know about eternal reward or punishment, and therefore, their concept of reward for good and punishment for evil was precisely that it was “dished out on earth.”

The difference here is merely the lack of divine revelation of eternal life.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Shakuhachi:

Our eternal self that survives the death of the ego and its brain dependent psychology

Here’s the thing, though: Christian theology makes the assertion that we regain a glorified body in the eschaton. Therefore, the ‘ego’ and the ‘brain’ are not annihilated, but will be reconstituted.

I dont think anyone is too sure about what that means.

But you are right; Christian theology clings to personhood as we know it here on earth. And yet the mystics talk about a self forgetting as the highest experience.

And the Christian and Buddhists differ on the eschatology. I am not sure Buddhists have such a concept.

 

[rossum]

Buddhism’s fundamental claims are that:

• there is no God
• there is no creation
• there is no individual self

Not exactly.

• Buddhism has tens of thousands of gods, but they are not important.
• The question of creation is not relevant, Buddhism does not care if the universe is eternal or not.
• You are correct, there is no individual self. We just think that there is.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So… according to Buddhism, when one reaches complete transcendence, does the individual self continue to exist?

Your question is wrongly put. When you reach enlightenment you realise that what you thought was your ‘self’ isn’t. It is just a mirage,

“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

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

Your question is wrongly put. When you reach enlightenment you realise that what you thought was your ‘self’ isn’t. It is just a mirage,

Correct. That was the answer I was waiting for. Thanks!

So, to the OP’s question: Christianity and Buddhism are about as fundamentally different as it gets, since the former posits a real God and real creation and real self, and Buddhism disagrees with each of these.