Buddhism

[Nullasalus]

The views of the individual differ between Buddhism and Christianity. To a Buddhist, the Christian view is in error. One of the three fundamental errors is to look for a soul in that which is soulless.

Except buddhists seem rather divided on that exact topic. Rather, they’re united on the denial of self, but then get in a bind when it comes to rebirth and reincarnation. How they can be unanimous in denying soul/self without having squared away concepts OF self is interesting to say the least. Especially given Buddha’s apparent unwillingness to come down heavily in either direction.

Of course, there’s a western-influenced minority that make the move to deny rebirth and reincarnation. Then again, they have the question of the Mack truck to deal with.

 

[rossum]

Except buddhists seem rather divided on that exact topic. Rather, they’re united on the denial of self, but then get in a bind when it comes to rebirth and reincarnation. How they can be unanimous in denying soul/self without having squared away concepts OF self is interesting to say the least. Especially given Buddha’s apparent unwillingness to come down heavily in either direction.

Buddhism has been around a bit longer than Christianity, so we have had time to develop a wider variety of views than you have, so far. Give it time, and I am sure you will catch up.

Of course, there’s a western-influenced minority that make the move to deny rebirth and reincarnation. Then again, they have the question of the Mack truck to deal with.

Easy. The injunction to “avoid injury to living things” applies to onself, since each of us is a living thing. Any injury to yourself is an unskillful action.

rossum

 

[juhothenero]

I suggest that you read Lumen Gentium:15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.
I think that Lumen Gentium has more authority than you in this matter: “… are honoured with the name of Christian.”

Ah, I was wrong and the church of course is right. But i still suppose mistake on my part on this issue does not make it right to judge me to hell for it. That is quite hateful from your part as you know.

There is still that contradiction in buddhist teaching against christianity which is dangerous for individual. I have seen reports of some buddhist monks burning themselves in protest of vietnam war, and some buddhist monks meditating until their own death. This is difference between christianity and buddhism which favors christianity as the true religion, where all life is respected according to its own value.

 

[juhothenero]

Lumen Gentium:15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.

And this quote btw still doesn’t suggest that all of us Christian posses the true entirity of faith. They are honoured with the same name but they are not in fact the same religion. You should always make a difference between catholic/orthodox and protestants. You are fooling yourself to think that christianity is more divided then it really is.

for the monk thing, some references:

vietnampix.com/fire1.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thích_Quảng_Đức

geocities.com/tcartz/sacrifice.htm

This is basically where buddhism go wrong. And after this i think you cannot say that buddhist must treat oneself with same rules as other living things.

 

[Nullasalus]

Buddhism has been around a bit longer than Christianity, so we have had time to develop a wider variety of views than you have, so far. Give it time, and I am sure you will catch up.

Not all that much longer, especially if you view Christianity as an extension of Judaism. But it’s not a question of time - as the OP said, buddhism is many times presented as a science, as something you can learn the truth of for yourself as self-evident. So learning how much disagreement and discord there is about what the self actually is (putting all the other disagreements aside), is instructive.

Easy. The injunction to “avoid injury to living things” applies to onself, since each of us is a living thing. Any injury to yourself is an unskillful action.

There’s no self, and death was considered essential for progress and enlightenment by Buddha himself. And if you regard desire as suffering and death as absolutely final, you could bypass the injunction. After all, how can death be an injury when the only person injured is not around to experience it?

To be fair, this is a knock primarily of the extremely recent, unbelievably minority western atheistic brand of buddhism. I’ve seen other buddhists regard it as making a tremendous mistake. But, it’s worth noting.

 

[rossum]

Ah, I was wrong and the church of course is right.

I am glad to have been of assistance.

But i still suppose mistake on my part on this issue does not make it right to judge me to hell for it. That is quite hateful from your part as you know.

I did not judge you to hell, that was not my intention at all. My apologies for not making myself clearer. As I understood Matthew 7:21, it just says that it is not possible for us to judge by externals, but that true judgement is reserved for God. Those who appear to us to be Holy may not be.

I certainly have no power to judge anyone to Hell, again my apologies for not making myself clearer.

There is still that contradiction in buddhist teaching against christianity which is dangerous for individual. I have seen reports of some buddhist monks burning themselves in protest of vietnam war, and some buddhist monks meditating until their own death. This is difference between christianity and buddhism which favors christianity as the true religion, where all life is respected according to its own value.

You are comparing the actions of some Buddhists with the ideal of Christianity. I could compare the ideal of Buddhism with the actual behaviour of some Christians and get the opposite result. Many Christians fall short of the ideal of Christianty, just as many Buddhists fall short of the ideal of Buddhism. That is not a comment on either religion, but a comment on the imperfection of humanity.

rossum

 

[juhothenero]

I did not judge you to hell, that was not my intention at all. My apologies for not making myself clearer. As I understood Matthew 7:21, it just says that it is not possible for us to judge by externals, but that true judgement is reserved for God. Those who appear to us to be Holy may not be.

Maybe the quote could have been better applied since this quote means of those persons who use christianity in a wrong way and thus yell lord lord for their own salvation in fear of hell rather then out of love for God Jesus Christ

You are comparing the actions of some Buddhists with the ideal of Christianity. I could compare the ideal of Buddhism with the actual behaviour of some Christians and get the opposite result. Many Christians fall short of the ideal of Christianty, just as many Buddhists fall short of the ideal of Buddhism. That is not a comment on either religion, but a comment on the imperfection of humanity.

In this issue I cannot agree with relativism. And in my understanding these are not situations of some fall short buddhists but rather real monks who know buddhism and studied it putting its teaching in action. Buddhism has many examples of monks meditating to death to achieve spiritual enlightment.

 

[juhothenero]

But buddhism also has a lot of good things for example the rules which can also be found in the bible. And the church says those with a good will can also be saved through christ, so I am not sure of why to fight about buddhism, better to fight on bad religion and atheism who are more stronger on taking souls for eternal death unfortunatly…

 

[soma]

Buddhism can make some Christians better Christians. I have met some Buddhist who were better Christians than people who call themselves Christian, but do not follow the way of Christ. In reverse I think Buddhist can learn to be better Buddhist by knowing Christianity.

 

[Ronald_E]

I went to see the Dalai Lama lecture on Buddhism at Stabler Arena Friday, and I came away from the teaching very disturbed. I went to see the Dalai Lama because I wanted to hear about Buddhism from it’s most famous practitioner, and because I admire the Dalai Lama as a monk. In accordance with my expectations, His Holiness opened the talk with the statement that Buddhism is not a religion, but rather a “science of the mind”. The entire lecture followed suite, and in the entire two hours I sat there I heard almost nothing on spirituality or metaphysics. Instead I heard about the mind, the root of suffering, and other things that made it sound more like science than spirituality. Then it struck me, very deeply, about half-way through the lecture; “What if they’re right?” For the first time in a long time, my faith in Christianity was tested, indeed, my theism was cast in doubt. With all the hooplah about Buddhism, it’s collaboration with science, it’s emphasis on empirical examination rather than on faith, and it’s total denial of a judgmental, personal God, it seemed for a second that they were right. It appeared that they know something that we don’t, attained with their not-so-mystical practice of analytical meditation. I was downright horrified. When I left, I became convinced that if Christianity was to effectively combat Buddhism, we need to attack it with logic, with reason. We need to take away it’s sense of logical superiority and show the West that it’s concepts of inter-dependence and liberation are delusions. I did a search on the internet, and there are no real, thorough, logical criticisms of Buddhism and it’s fundamental tenets. So, in conclusion, I ask others here, those of you who are so knowledgable of our venerable and ancient Faith, how do we do this? How do we combat Buddhism with reason?

(I apologize if this text seems like rambling, I have trouble organizing my thoughts in a coherent manner sometimes…)

We cannot attack Buddhism; we must understand Buddhism. The Buddhist knows the mind which is the “flesh” better than any theologian or psychologist. I do not say every Buddhist knows the mind but that is where suffering and violence originate. If you read James’ letter he talks about desire being the beginning of sin and when desire matures it becomes sin. Sin is a state of suffering.
Fear prevents us from knowing God. The self that the Buddhists talk about is the false self that is created when the human being is young and in an extremely vulnerable state realizes that she or he must give up the expression of their needs and adhere to the narcissistic desire of the parents.
If we do not understand the mind we can never unite Christianity because each person’s identity is based on a belief that solidifies into a defense system built to protect it from any unwanted intruders. The fear is that others will see the wound that causes such a deep sense of shame that it would threaten the loss of whatever illusion was left and that person would then be known as being nothing.
This brings me to the point about what it means to be a new creation in Christ. It means that the old self must die. Do we know what that means?

 

[Waqas_411]

Buddhism doesn’t even have a heaven or hell, so why does it matter if it is right?

 

[rossum]

Buddhism doesn’t even have a heaven or hell, so why does it matter if it is right?

According to the Abhidharmakosa there are sixteen hells (eight hot and eight cold). There are 27 heavens (6 Kama heavens, 17 Rupa heavens and 4 Arupa heavens). All the heavens and all the hells are temporary, though you may be in one of them for a very long time depending on how good or how bad you were.

rossum

 

[SedesDomi]

All the heavens and all the hells are temporary, though you may be in one of them for a very long time depending on how good or how bad you were.

“Good” and “bad”, of course, being code words for “embodying compassion and wisdom” and “embodying hatred, lust, and delusion”.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

I’ve consistently seen on this thread people who think they know what Buddhism really teaches and even provided more highly educated people from their own faith who think they know what Buddhism teaches. The fact remains that most of it is not even close, while some of it is closer than others.

The misconceptions about Buddhism are either because of lack of understanding or bias. When it comes from the Christian perspective it is both. I left Christianity, followed Buddhism and now have come back to Christianity. I will not detail the reasons why.

My summary is this: rossum has provided ample answers to the same silly accusations and lack of understanding that has come from Christianity over the many hundreds of years. Christianity and Buddhism are polar opposites in that you cannot take the ideas from one and apply it to the other. It won’t work.

They are two different approaches to understanding this thing we call “life”. Christians - just remember that. Understand where Buddhism is coming from first before you apply Christian principles to it. You will understand it better that way.

Just my tidbit for now.

Peace…

MW

 

[Ronald_E]

I’ve consistently seen on this thread people who think they know what Buddhism really teaches and even provided more highly educated people from their own faith who think they know what Buddhism teaches. The fact remains that most of it is not even close, while some of it is closer than others.

The misconceptions about Buddhism are either because of lack of understanding or bias. When it comes from the Christian perspective it is both. I left Christianity, followed Buddhism and now have come back to Christianity. I will not detail the reasons why.

My summary is this: rossum has provided ample answers to the same silly accusations and lack of understanding that has come from Christianity over the many hundreds of years. Christianity and Buddhism are polar opposites in that you cannot take the ideas from one and apply it to the other. It won’t work.

They are two different approaches to understanding this thing we call “life”. Christians - just remember that. Understand where Buddhism is coming from first before you apply Christian principles to it. You will understand it better that way.

Just my tidbit for now.

Peace…

MW

I agree. Who was it who said “Be not afraid?”

 

[Ahimsa]

I agree. Who was it who said “Be not afraid?”

Mark 6:50:

Jesus:

“Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

Dhajagga Sutta:

Buddha:

In wilderness, monks,
at the foot of a tree,
or in an empty dwelling,
recollect the Buddha:
You will have no fear.