Buddihism and Christiantiy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ahimsaman,

Speaking of a “temporary” vs. eternal self, do you think you could say that the Buddha spoke of a “temporary” origin, rather than an eternal origin?
 
40.png
rossum:
I am afraid that you need to learn more about Buddhism - this is completely wrong. Buddhism denies the the real existence of any “self” or “soul”. Enlightnement is the realisation that there is no real self at all.“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 v 7)Your criticism does not apply to Buddhism.

Good, this is much better. Buddhists do indeed seek detachment and selflessness.

Not quite. Buddhism is a path. I can only have a desire to travel the path while I am travelling; once I have arrived at my destination then I no longer have any desire to travel. A raft is useful for crossing a river, but once you have crossed over you should leave the raft behind. It would be an error to carry the raft with you on your back.

I only seek to empty the illusion of a self, as you rightly say I cannot empty a self that is already empty.

As that article says in its header it was written about 1910. At that time the understanding of Buddhism in the West was very deficient. The first reliable translations of the sutras only began to appear about 1950, before then the technical vocabulary of Buddhism was insufficiently understood. The Tibetan diaspora following the flight of the Dalai Lama has also helped improve the West’s understanding of Buddhism. I am afraid that what may have been the best knowledge in 1910 is now very behind the times. The article also showed itself religiously biased:The fundamental tenets of Buddhism are marked by grave defects that not only betray its inadequacy to become a religion of enlightened humanity, but also bring into bold relief its inferiority to the religion of Jesus Christ.Would you rely on an article about Christianity that said, “The fundamental tenets of Christianity are marked by grave defects that not only betray its inadequacy to become a religion of enlightened humanity, but also bring into bold relief its inferiority to the religion of the Buddha”? Far better to use a more modern and less biased source such as Wikipedia, Encarta or those I gave earlier in this thread.

rossum
I think you ignore the possibility that the Dalai Lama, in speaking to western audiences, has adopted western terminology and, to some extent, recast his religion in something like liberal protestant terms. Buddhism can hardly be resistent to syncretism, since one can at the same time be Shinto and Buddhist. Indeed, northern Buddhism historically seemd to have taken that route.
 
40.png
RobbyS:
I think you ignore the possibility that the Dalai Lama, in speaking to western audiences, has adopted western terminology and, to some extent, recast his religion in something like liberal protestant terms.
Many Westerners can read Tibetan nowadays, so the Dalai Lama isn’t the only, or even the dominant, source for finding out what Tibetan Buddhism teaches. Add to that, the fact that the Dalai Lama is a member of just one of the four major Tibetan Buddhist traditions, so whatever he might say, would not necessarily represent all of Tibetan Buddhism, not to mention all of Buddhism. (Many Westerners can read Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese, and Japanese, nowadays, too.)
 
Nekić:
This Rock did a wonderful article on this that will answer 90%-100% of peoples questions on the topic of the “similarity” between Christianity and Bhuddism:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0505fea1.asp

Enjoy.
This article contains some common misunderstandings of Buddhism. To wit:
Buddha also taught the “three characteristics of being”:

  1. *]All things are transitory.
    *]There is no self or personality.
    *]This world brings only pain and suffering.

  1. The traditional way of saying this is:
    1. All conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
    2. All conditioned phenomena are dukkha (“unsatisfactory”). (Point 3 in the article.)
    3. All dhammas are anatta (“not-self”). (Point 2 in the article.)
    First of all, this list is not accepted by all schools of Buddhism. (To say so would be analogous to saying that all Christians accept papal infallibility.) Second, the terms used in the article are misleading, out of their proper context. “Self” has a specific, rather technical, meaning in Buddhism; and “personality” is not synonymous with the Buddhist definition of “self”. “Pain and suffering” is just one possible definition of “dukkha” (“unsatisfactory”), and is not the meaning referred to here. Instead, dukkha includes all forms of happiness and pleasure that will eventually end. A better translation of point 3 in the article would be: “This world brings pleasure that does not last forever.”
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
Ahimsaman,

Speaking of a “temporary” vs. eternal self, do you think you could say that the Buddha spoke of a “temporary” origin, rather than an eternal origin?
Hello friend.

I don’t think he ever taught it as such. Given the temporary status of our existence in our bodies, I would say the underlying principles for such are there though. As you know, the three marks of existence are: 1) Suffering exists and permeates all things, 2) All things change and 3) there is no permanent “self”.

Given these three marks of existence, a temporary “origin” would be sufficient to help us differentiate from having a “permanent” origin. I think that was his point. Any way you slice it, we have come into being as a result of causes and conditions and when those causes and conditions are no longer present, we will cease to exist in this form.

He didn’t say much about origins of our existence except to say that we shouldn’t be concerned about it. Many came to him (as you know) wanting to have all their questions answered and the Buddha helped them understand that they could spend their lives trying to figure it out, but that their transcendence of birth and death would still remain to be solved.

I hesitate to link this wording and view of “temporary” vs. “permanent” self to what the Buddha taught, as it is only my interpretation and explanation of what Shakayamuni taught.

Peace friend…
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
This article contains some common misunderstandings of Buddhism. To wit:

The traditional way of saying this is:
  1. All conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
  2. All conditioned phenomena are dukkha (“unsatisfactory”). (Point 3 in the article.)
  3. All dhammas are anatta (“not-self”). (Point 2 in the article.)
First of all, this list is not accepted by all schools of Buddhism. (To say so would be analogous to saying that all Christians accept papal infallibility.) Second, the terms used in the article are misleading, out of their proper context. “Self” has a specific, rather technical, meaning in Buddhism; and “personality” is not synonymous with the Buddhist definition of “self”. “Pain and suffering” is just one possible definition of “dukkha” (“unsatisfactory”), and is not the meaning referred to here. Instead, dukkha includes all forms of happiness and pleasure that will eventually end. A better translation of point 3 in the article would be: “This world brings pleasure that does not last forever.”
Yes, very good Ahimsa. It is difficult when translating Pali to English, because as it is with many languages, you just can’t translate “word-for-word” so easily. Some concepts take whole sentences to portray one word accurately.

Dukkha unfortunately entails many more things in Pali than it has converted to in English. I read one person compare dukkha (defined as “unhappiness”) to sukkha (defined as “happiness”). This doesn’t tell the whole story and only gives one a general idea of the meaning behind it all.

I personally have struggled with the different definitions given to these words (and many others for that matter). I’ve relied on Buddhist teachers from different traditions who gave their own understanding of those words and frankly many of them give a different meaning or viewpoint. And this makes it all the more difficult for westerners such as myself to truly understand the Dharma as it should be understood.

I never thought of your translation of point 3. I believe it to be accurate and extends the common definition. You are truly insightful. Are you sure you’re not Buddhist down deep in there? 🙂

Peace…
 
40.png
rossum:
The similarities are most striking in the area of morality: “Love others as you love yourself.” (Bhadramayakavyakarana sutra 91). At a theological level the two religions are very different.
I believe the similarity mentioned hear is more significant then people are giving credit. When Jesus makes the statement “Love your neighbor as you love yourself” he states that this sums up the Law and the Prophets. That seems like a lot to sum up. Percentages seem like an odd way to compare the similarities but I would say that the similarity in this regard is very significant.

The theological differences are certainly real and do matter. But as Jesus said in many ways, “A tree is known by its fruit”

Anyone who lives practicing the Golden Rule will, I believe, find a place in God’s kingdom as well as Nirvana.

peace

Jim
 
Montie Claunch:
In Intro. To Logic class last semester My teacher started rambling on about how the Bible and Buddist writings (philosphy, something like that) was like 90% the same or something. Has anyone heard of this? What is the same? Is it really that much? I thought they didn’t beleive in any God? Are there any good books or websites addressing Buddism (sp?)? Thanks and God Bless.
The similarity : Just as christianity, buddhism seeks salvation & perfection. The big difference however, buddhism start from human effort to reach this salvation & perfection. Thus buddhism talks about “a way of life” which is more philosophical. Christianity starts with “God’s word” , thus more “theological”.

The basic theology was born when God spoke to Abram and gave His Promise for the first time. However, theology has met philosopy for the first time when
Moses met God and asked what was His Name. And this God who created heaven and earth said I AM Who AM.

The one ness of The Only One God who was, is, and is to come, whom there is none beside Him-- this is where judaism & christianity understand that all existance has to be united with God, or otherwise nothingness. So the implication of God who is One and the owner all existance ( life) has to be “selflessness”.

Buddhism sees selflessness as a way out because self (our body & mind) is the centre of suffering. But we know why “self is the centre of suffering” because when we are “self centred” we are basicly think as and individual entity separated from God. Theology teach that separation from God is sin (death).

Thus buddism which reaches out to “perfection” has intersected set of christianity’s God reaching down from heaven (heaven is perfection) and teach the true meaning of “The Way” to “perfection” which all men seek.

The way of selflessness of men (mens’ effort) however-- according christianity-- is not the final teaching, but rather : the begining. Because when God himself came down from heaven and incarnate in a man, He showed that He Is The Way to Perfection, that He is The Selfless One, that whoever believe in Him will be saved : not because mens’ selflessness but God’s selflessness that men are saved. God who incarnate in a man and showed total selflessness (emptied Himself in a man) and died for us all. In this way, all men will see God as the most righteous thus worthy of all Glory : that none of mens’ perfection can compare to God’s. Yet this is not the end of the story.

God who is perfection is the one to bring men to perfection, not the other way round. Men who reach out to perfection will find their limit. Because men, when they reach a certain stage of perfection will have to battle his own pride, while the way of perfection is pure selflessness & humility, and there cannot be any other way.

Bible passages: John 8:12; John 8:21-23; John 8:28; John 8:54

The way to perfection is full of dangerous pits : which cause men with their own effort cannot reach to the highest heaven. So, Jesus teach men to trust God first, then God himself will transform those who believe into perfectiion.

Bible passage: John 17
 
Does anyone know where this idea came about that Christianity and Buddist are that similar? Thanks and God bless.
 
Montie Claunch:
Does anyone know where this idea came about that Christianity and Buddist are that similar? Thanks and God bless.
I couldn’t tell you, but what is it you are trying to accomplish? I mean that respectfully and with good intentions. Maybe if you tell me what your goal is then I could help you further or help you find the right information at least.

Peace and blessings to you…
 
Montie Claunch:
Does anyone know where this idea came about that Christianity and Buddist are that similar? Thanks and God bless.
Meditation/prayer/contemplation is the key; “being quiet.” Buddha spent years in the Indian wilderness, meditating, contemplating. Jesus spent time in the desert wilderness, praying, contemplating, getting quiet.

To wit:

A Way of Peace through India and Florence

As an American contemplative Christian I am grateful to have been included as a participant in the Ways to Peace pilgrimages to India and Florence. I grew up Lutheran in the 1950’s, in a denomination that had effectively repressed its contemplative heritage when it severed its connection with Rome during the Reformation. Through the gateway of zazen and Taoist meditation (as a Dartmouth undergraduate in the late 60’s), I found out that just sitting and doing nothing could be, in the spiritual dimension, doing something. This was a startling revelation for a Midwestern, working class guy like me who had always been taught that being non-productive, even for a moment, was sloth, a shameful sin.
Code:
     With the help of writers Thomas Merton, Alan Watts, and D.T. Suzuki, I gradually realized that perhaps meditation could also be a *bone fide* Christian experience. It was St. John of the Cross who finally escorted me across the threshold into the mainstream of the Catholic mystical tradition. It was St. John who taught me that "emptiness" can indeed be a kind of Zen spaciousness, but also a living dimension of Presence in which God is working to purify my mind and heart. Under the tutelage of some counter-cultural Carmelite monks in New Hampshire, I joined the Catholic church and became a Third Order Carmelite in 1973.

     Since 1984 I have worked and played in the fields of the Buddhist-Christian dialogue. Today I am the director of a lay Christian contemplative community called the Empty Bell in Watertown, Massachusetts. Part of our mission is to bring Christians and Buddhists together. I have taken part in many interfaith dialogues over the years. In the 1970’s and 80’s most of these sessions were between Japanese Zen Masters and scholars and Roman Catholic theologians, monks and nuns. However, in the last ten years, the audience has become [more discerning and more diverse](http://www.emptybell.org/florence.html).
 
If anyone is interested (and obviously you are) in the relationship between Christianity and the Eastern philosophies and/or religions I would recommend reading Pope Benedict XVI’s (when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) book, Truth and Tollerance: Christian Belief and World Relgions. I am still reading it, but so far it is a great book.

Basically I think the difference between Christianity and Budhism is the way we think of God. We (Catholics) say, “We are Thine.” We are God’s creatures, His to do with what He wills and without Him we do not exist.

The Budhist (and Hinduist, and other adherent to those types of religion) say, “We are Thee”. The final end of the person is extinction “Nirvana” to become one with the Divinity (however It is viewed by the various religions).

I believe that we do exist as individuals, we are not part of God as in we can never be completely one with Him. This world does exist and is not merely an illusion. The aim of life should not be to avoid suffering but to lay our sufferings, temptations and trials at the feet of the merciful Jesus.
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
If anyone is interested (and obviously you are) in the relationship between Christianity and the Eastern philosophies and/or religions I would recommend reading Pope Benedict XVI’s (when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) book, Truth and Tollerance: Christian Belief and World Relgions. I am still reading it, but so far it is a great book.

Basically I think the difference between Christianity and Budhism is the way we think of God. We (Catholics) say, “We are Thine.” We are God’s creatures, His to do with what He wills and without Him we do not exist.

The Budhist (and Hinduist, and other adherent to those types of religion) say, “We are Thee”. The final end of the person is extinction “Nirvana” to become one with the Divinity (however It is viewed by the various religions).

I believe that we do exist as individuals, we are not part of God as in we can never be completely one with Him. This world does exist and is not merely an illusion. The aim of life should not be to avoid suffering but to lay our sufferings, temptations and trials at the feet of the merciful Jesus.
I’ve read Truth and Tolerance, and I respect Pope Benedict XVI’s interpretation of the different religions (or, of Christianity and the religions), but I don’t think he fully understands the diversity of Hindu or Buddhist thought, nor the meaning of terms like “illusion” as used in certain Hindu or Buddhist schools.

For instance, “extinction” wouldn’t be the word to use to describe nirvana, since extinction of all personhood would be no different than the afterlife proposed by atheism (that is, sheer non-existence). “Nirvana” means “not-bound” – “nir” meaning “not” and “vana” meaning “bound”. Nirvana, then, is the Unbinding which liberates. Since our human minds cannot describe fully the experience and realization of nirvana, the Buddha often refused to give verbal descriptions of what nirvana is. But, whatever it is, it isn’t “extinction,” or “sheer non-existence.”

“Illusion” is also an unfortunate English translation of the word “maya”. In Hindu, Vedantic, thought, only Brahman is “real”. But “real”, in the way that it’s used here, means “eternally unchanging.” So, something that is not “real” (as “real” is defined in Vedanta) is not “non-existent,” but simply “changing.” My body, my mind, the earth, the cosmos – all of this changing. Since they change, then, you can also say that they are “un-real” when compared to the real, unchanging Brahman. In other words, the universe has a relative realness, compared the absolute realness of Brahman. “Illusion”, as used in Hindu thought, refers to this real reality that is nonetheless changing, and not as “real” as Brahman.

I should also point out that the essay the Pope wrote, he wrote back in the 1960s, I believe, when Western understanding of the Dharmic paths were not as extensive.
 
Montie Claunch:
In Intro. To Logic class last semester My teacher started rambling on about how the Bible and Buddist writings (philosphy, something like that) was like 90% the same or something. Has anyone heard of this? What is the same? Is it really that much? I thought they didn’t beleive in any God? Are there any good books or websites addressing Buddism (sp?)? Thanks and God Bless.
I was forced to take a Budhism class in college the same term I was to enter the Church. (Needed that “US diversity” credit) I was a little worried that the class might upset my apple cart.

But if there was one thing that I learned about Budhism, it was that it doesn’t hold a candle to Christianity. Among other things, envision what Christianity would be like if all the apostles immediatly broke from each other and started their own denominations. That’s what happened with Budhism and why it remains split nearly as bad as American Protestantism.

The same goes for enlightenment. Nirvana is their version of heaven, where the soul goes when it no longer has any desire for anything worldly. They meditate in order to completely clear their minds and empty themselves. In this manner, they hope to escape the cycle of reincarnation and reach Nirvana. Now how contradictory is that the thing that they want more than anything else is to not want anything. The whole concept is the biggest oxymoron I’ve ever heard of. (and that’s pretty big if you compare it to “military intelligence”)
 
40.png
forthright:
Now how contradictory is that the thing that they want more than anything else is to not want anything. The whole concept is the biggest oxymoron I’ve ever heard of. (and that’s pretty big if you compare it to “military intelligence”)
Hello forthright,

There are two types of desires in Buddhism: the desires that lead away from Nirvana (e.g., greed, hatred), and the desires that lead toward Nirvana (compassion, wisdom). These are called kama-chanda, and dhamma-chanda, respectively.

The first step of Buddhist practice is to cultivate the right kind of desire, not to get rid of desire entirely.

Here’s an example a disciple of the Buddha gave: imagine you want to walk to the park. You have a desire, and you start walking. You get to the park, you sit down on the bench. Your desire to go to the park has now dissolved, because you’re at the park. Thus, you can use desire, to get beyond desire.😃
 
That is another major problem with Budhism that I personally have. Any time I am in a discussion with someone who claims to be a Budhist I always get the same run-around. “Well, that isn’t exactly the right translation.” or “Well, that isn’t how our view of Budhism is” etc etc. ad naseam. You can never pin someone down on an issue. It seems to me that practically anything goes as long as it can wiggle around a Western objection.
 
Montie Claunch:
Does anyone know where this idea came about that Christianity and Buddist are that similar? Thanks and God bless.
Carmelite orders look quite similar to buddhism in term of lifestyle, and their philosophical relationtship with each other, with nature, etc.

Many orders of the priesthood and brotherhood insists on life of poverty, obedience and abstinence.

We remember prophets Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, John the Baptist & their life style.
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
That is another major problem with Budhism that I personally have. Any time I am in a discussion with someone who claims to be a Budhist I always get the same run-around. “Well, that isn’t exactly the right translation.” or “Well, that isn’t how our view of Budhism is” etc etc. ad naseam. You can never pin someone down on an issue. It seems to me that practically anything goes as long as it can wiggle around a Western objection.
Just as there are many sects or forms of Christianity, there are different sects in Buddhism. The differences in Buddhism are (in my opinion) more about the method of practice than dogmatic beliefs. There are many things all sects in Buddhism agree on. They all agree that morality, concentration and wisdom and compassion are essential in living a Buddhist life.

What would you like “pinned down”?

Buddhism is older than Christianity and has adapted to every culture into which it presented itself. It never demanded obedience. It never forced its way. There are different forms based on the country into which it went. There’s Korean, Vietnamese, Laotian, Chinese, Japanese, etc Buddhism.

All have taken basic beliefs and values and incorporated them into the indigenous beliefs which pre-existed in that culture. So, I disagree that anything goes, but that cultural differences make up a big part of the perceived imbalance of belief.

Peace…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top