Buddihism and Christiantiy

[StubbleSpark]

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.

If that is true, then shouldn’t there be a form of Buddhism that addresses Western logical challenges? Buddhism’s biggest draw for Westerners more often than not seems to be its appeal of inscrutability and foreignness.

Because Catholicism built Western civilization, we Westerners have a habit of putting ideas up on the altar and cutting them apart under the blade of our scrutiny. After all, if being sacrificed is good enough for our God, then it certainly is good enough for the ideas that are supposed to lead us to Him.

If there is no way to come to a clear, logical understanding of Buddhism, then we have a problem. Because as we have seen in the abundant previous examples, Christianity is as much an inexhaustible source of deep meditation as Buddhism (not to mention contemplative meditation, which Buddhists cannot do because of its distinctive focus on the divine Other).

Yes, we have similarities. But the difference seems to favor Catholicism, doesn’t it? In other words, the faith created by the Creator seems to have a more universal appeal. A Westerner should not be asked to check his “Westernness” at the door in order to become Buddhist – especially if there is nothing inherently wrong with being rational, inquisitive beings.

I am a very aggressive and logical man. My fiancee is a Lay Carmelite. Our spiritualities are as different as night and day – sometimes we really have difficulty seeing eye to eye – but we are both devout, orthodox Catholics. We are united in faith and purpose.

If this were just a personality conflict, the relationship would never work out. Because these are just very different facets of the diamond of Catholic spirituality, we are a team. Kind of like a supernatural version of the X-men where we use both use our unique gifts for the Kingdom.

I submit to you that no such example of unity and universality exists outside Catholic spirituality. Please refute.

And yes, as posted above, the bulk of my educational background focuses on Japanese Buddhism but I also have a familiarity with Chinese as well. Our enemy, godless, faithless Communism still bars access to this cultural treasure and will continue to do so until we crush the last vestiges of Communism and totally raze Marx’s false gods throughout mother China.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Also, you have to realize that, as Catholics, we almost have as much an issue with Buddhism’s fissiparousness as we do with Protestantism’s. Realize that for nearly two millennia Christianity was (and still should be today) a unified faith with unified doctrine and dogma.

Not having a definite answer to our questions on essential matters of faith is disturbing. If Japanese Pure Land is Sola Fide, but Chinese Pure Land involves faith and works, then who has it right? They all cannot be right because the conflicts are deep and concern the essentials as to how to attain Nirvana.

You could say this is inconsequential because the soul (or “self” or whatever it is that gets “loosed” in Nirvana) has a second chance to get it right after reincarnation. But not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation. If they are right, the death of these ignorant souls is a complete travesty.

If Buddhism cannot provide authoritative, cohesive answers to fundamental questions like purpose (which is not origin, by the way), direction, method, origin, destination and other questions that every human being eventually asks life, then what is it for?

The cultural differences you point out between the types of Asian Buddhism are not mere superficial cultural differences in form like you see in comparing, for example, Byzantine Catholic and Mayan Catholic worship. They are fundamental differences in doctrine and dogma that paint radically different worldviews.

If in Buddhism that which is unchanging is not real (unchanging is one of the defining factors of Truth in Christianity) then those forms of Buddhism that have changed are in fact, not real.

The issue of authority is unavoidable. Which version of Buddhism is true? If it does not matter which, then Buddhism as a whole does not matter and we can leave this window dressing for more important matters concerning eternal salvation.

 

[StubbleSpark]

Does anyone know where this idea came about that Christianity and Buddist are that similar? Thanks and God bless.

One of the ways Sola Scriptura has infected Western thought is through the introduction of relativism and subjectivism as acceptable in the search for Truth. Follow the successive degenerations:

Faith and Truth are a whole and a unity.

Faith and Truth are subjected to the scrutiny of individuals but people generally still have some basic idea of what should be done and believed.

Faith and Truth are completely muddled. No one can say anything for certain about Christianity.

Faith and Truth are completely relative. One religion is as good as another even though not all religions deal with, or care about, the well-being of our eternal souls.

Secularism, a belief system based on (and incapable of transcending) natural, observable phenomena, takes precedence as the authoritative worldview – supernatural faith is derided as superstitious. Society in its conceit becomes hostile to all faiths and a concerted effort begins to show it is all “made up” through unsubstantiated innuendo and flippant comparisons (as if that proved their point).

In such a society, ignorant, uncultured men who cannot tell dharma from my elbow become Intro to Logic professors to perpetuate the myth of “sameness = made up” from the only position of authority left: soulless “expert”.

So I would answer your “where” question with: Martin Luther.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Just as there are many sects or forms of Christianity, there are different sects in Buddhism.

Granted, however, as I’m sure you are aware of from posting here, there is only one TRUE “form” of Christianity-being of course the Catholic Church. We don’t consider the other “forms” to be legitimate.

The differences in Buddhism are (in my opinion) more about the method of practice than dogmatic beliefs.

OK, but that is your opinion. Is there anything close to a Catechism that can sort out what is “true” Buddhism and what would be “heretical” Buddhism (if that is possible in this system)?

What would you like “pinned down”?

That would be more my fault, as the “Buddhists” I talk to are mostly New Agers and I don’t really think they know what they think.

However, let us just take Nirvana. We can argue semantics as to if it is an “extinquishing” or “unbinding” but I don’t think that is relevant. It would be like me arguing for transubstantiation with a Buddhist-if you don’t believe in Christianity in general it is pointless to argue for the correct interpretation of one of its details.

I don’t have the book right in front of me (but I’d be glad to find it and quote) that does talk of Nirvana as an “extinquishing”. Now, the way I understood it is not “sheer non-existence” but rather a going out of existence (as we on earth see it) and sorta being “one with the universe” if you will allow me to use a rather cliche sounding term. And then you say, “No, it is more like an unbinding…” OK…so…

The point is, that is totally incoherent with the concept of personal existance. “I think therefore I am” type of thing. It seems obvious that you and I exist as real persons, not illusions of any type or interpretations. What we do matters individually as well as communally and not as merely some trapped inner Brahman. That smacks of Gnosticism to me.

Buddhism is older than Christianity and has adapted to every culture into which it presented itself.

The Graeco-Roman religion was older than Christianity and adapted to every culture into which it presented itself, save of course for Judaism and later Christianity. The philosophers of the pagan world were thinking there way towards a “supreme being” like Aristotle’s “First Cause” or Plotinus’ “The One”. The Church came along displaced the old gods, because they were false. Truth and falsehood cannot exist side by side forever, someday one has to give.

The old religion could exist side by side with other religions because it just absorbed them, like the cult of Isis or Mithra. Christianity wouldn’t play the Roman’s game, so they tried to stamp it out. It ended up that the Church buried the old state relgion, same with the Germanic and Celtic gods, and practically everything else it comes into contact with.

It never demanded obedience. It never forced its way.

So? If it is true, it should demand it.

The Christian message is absolute. Christ says, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” not “Here are some cool ideas you can follow if you feel like it, doesn’t really matter though…” There is no other way for man to be saved, except by Christ through His Church. Truth demands obedience. If a religion is true, than it is the only claim that can validly be upheld.

There are different forms based on the country into which it went. There’s Korean, Vietnamese, Laotian, Chinese, Japanese, etc Buddhism.

They are not unified like all Catholics are unified. All Catholics, be them from the U.S., Italy, Russia, Greece, Egypt, China, Austrailia, Samoa, Finland, Zimbabwe, whatever all profess the EXACT same faith-we all believe in the same Creed, we all recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, we all owe obedience in faith to the doctrines and precepts of the Church etc. There might be different local customs, there might be different Rites but we are all ONE Universal Church.

Buddhism differs quite a bit from country to country. It would be more like comparing Catholic to Orthodox, to Lutheran, to Pentacostal, to Methodist, to Mormon, to SDA etc. Big differences-and essential questions of truth need to be rectified.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Faith and Truth are completely relative. One religion is as good as another even though not all religions deal with, or care about, the well-being of our eternal souls.

I think that is why the Eastern religions have begun to catch on in the West, if people believe that one religion is just as good as another, then why not? Buddhism does sound a lot less “judgmental” and “dogmatic” than Catholicism.

I am waiting for the day when people start to resurrect the Graeco-Roman gods or start sacrificing people to Baal or the Aztec gods. If one religion is as good as another…

 

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

If that is true, then shouldn’t there be a form of Buddhism that addresses Western logical challenges? Buddhism’s biggest draw for Westerners more often than not seems to be its appeal of inscrutability and foreignness.

In the past 50 years Zen/Chan Buddhism has made real headway in the US. Theravada Buddhism has also risen quite deal - especially in the West - up and down the Pacific Coast. At present many are trying to institute a “Western Buddhism”. You have to admit that Buddhism is relatively new to the US. I would say that Zen has the most popularity with the Western mind and meshes very well with Western thought.

Because Catholicism built Western civilization, we Westerners have a habit of putting ideas up on the altar and cutting them apart under the blade of our scrutiny. After all, if being sacrificed is good enough for our God, then it certainly is good enough for the ideas that are supposed to lead us to Him.

If there is no way to come to a clear, logical understanding of Buddhism, then we have a problem. Because as we have seen in the abundant previous examples, Christianity is as much an inexhaustible source of deep meditation as Buddhism (not to mention contemplative meditation, which Buddhists cannot do because of its distinctive focus on the divine Other).

Why is Buddhism so unclear? Have you studied it for any length of time? I don’t have an excellent understanding, just a simple one, but it is enough for me to logical come to conclusions.

Yes, we have similarities. But the difference seems to favor Catholicism, doesn’t it? In other words, the faith created by the Creator seems to have a more universal appeal. A Westerner should not be asked to check his “Westernness” at the door in order to become Buddhist – especially if there is nothing inherently wrong with being rational, inquisitive beings.

I’m not playing a “this faith is better than this faith” game. Comparison doesn’t have to end up as “mine is better than yours”.

I am a very aggressive and logical man. My fiancee is a Lay Carmelite. Our spiritualities are as different as night and day – sometimes we really have difficulty seeing eye to eye – but we are both devout, orthodox Catholics. We are united in faith and purpose.

If this were just a personality conflict, the relationship would never work out. Because these are just very different facets of the diamond of Catholic spirituality, we are a team. Kind of like a supernatural version of the X-men where we use both use our unique gifts for the Kingdom.

I submit to you that no such example of unity and universality exists outside Catholic spirituality. Please refute.

I don’t understand why you are asking me to refute something I don’t remember asserting??

And yes, as posted above, the bulk of my educational background focuses on Japanese Buddhism but I also have a familiarity with Chinese as well. Our enemy, godless, faithless Communism still bars access to this cultural treasure and will continue to do so until we crush the last vestiges of Communism and totally raze Marx’s false gods throughout mother China.

Communism will fall in China - I am sure of it. I will be glad when that comes, but it will be a real struggle.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

ComradeAndrei:

Granted, however, as I’m sure you are aware of from posting here, there is only one TRUE “form” of Christianity-being of course the Catholic Church. We don’t consider the other “forms” to be legitimate.

Well, yes, but that is of course debateable. The fact remains that there are many ways of practicing Christianity even though each group may consider the others heretical.

OK, but that is your opinion. Is there anything close to a Catechism that can sort out what is “true” Buddhism and what would be “heretical” Buddhism (if that is possible in this system)?

There is a Pali Canon, which is supposedly the earliest written Buddhist teachings. The tradition that holds fast to this Canon is the Theravada. But, even in Tibet and China there are Buddhist teachings in their respective languages and traditions.

When the Buddha’s teaching encountered cultures that were primarily Taoist or Confucian or perhaps the Bon tradition in Tibet, that teaching was formed to fit that culture. They didn’t force the Buddha’s teachings, the teachings were assimiliated in that respective culture. Buddhism is less about religion and more about dealing with life at all levels. Consider it an education that can be formed and fitted to any situation.

That would be more my fault, as the “Buddhists” I talk to are mostly New Agers and I don’t really think they know what they think.

Buddhist beliefs have been incorporated into many new-age philosphies, yes.

However, let us just take Nirvana. We can argue semantics as to if it is an “extinquishing” or “unbinding” but I don’t think that is relevant. It would be like me arguing for transubstantiation with a Buddhist-if you don’t believe in Christianity in general it is pointless to argue for the correct interpretation of one of its details.

Nirvana is what it is no matter what we think of it. It is absolute truth that defies interpretation. It doesn’t change just because we can’t define it or even adequately describe it. You would probably consider God the same way. He is what He is despite our accurate or erroneous views about Him.

John Smith may see it as “unbinding” and Jane Smith may see it as “extinguishing”. Both could be true. This is relative truth of course. But it’s all we have. We use conventional truths to get at ultimate truths. The conventional truths are not reality - they only point to the ultimate truth, which is reality.

I don’t have the book right in front of me (but I’d be glad to find it and quote) that does talk of Nirvana as an “extinquishing”. Now, the way I understood it is not “sheer non-existence” but rather a going out of existence (as we on earth see it) and sorta being “one with the universe” if you will allow me to use a rather cliche sounding term. And then you say, “No, it is more like an unbinding…” OK…so…

My answer above might help with this.

The point is, that is totally incoherent with the concept of personal existance. “I think therefore I am” type of thing. It seems obvious that you and I exist as real persons, not illusions of any type or interpretations. What we do matters individually as well as communally and not as merely some trapped inner Brahman. That smacks of Gnosticism to me.

The Buddha said that “mind precedes all things”. Mind is the maker of all things. “I am what I think” is a proper Buddhist concept. We exist - yes. A great modern teacher is Master Thich Nhat Hanh. He is a master Zen Buddhist. He explains life in this way: consider water and waves. The waves are one with the water, but yet different. They are the same on a nouemenal level - they are by nature the same. But, phenomenally, the waves are different. You can’t have waves without water or water without waves.

All people and living things and the universe are one. We all depend on each other for existence. We need trees because they provide oxygen. They also provide shelter from storms. We need food to sustain our bodies which the earth provides. And we are the caretakers of the earth. It is a cycle of existence. It is what Buddhists refer to as “interdependence”. Without harmonious relationships in the universe the universe would not exist as we know it.

I edited content here for space - sorry

Buddhism differs quite a bit from country to country. It would be more like comparing Catholic to Orthodox, to Lutheran, to Pentacostal, to Methodist, to Mormon, to SDA etc. Big differences-and essential questions of truth need to be rectified.

Well, yes I agree. The different rites and practices in the Catholic Church are not a good comparison to the differences between Catholicism and the protestant sects.

Peace…

 

[reen12]

quote: ComradeAndrei

I submit to you that no such example of unity and universality exists outside Catholic spirituality.

quote: StubbleSpark

…there is only one TRUE “form” of Christianity-being of course the Catholic Church. We don’t consider the other “forms” to be legitimate

Faith-based assertions.

And if communism eventually departs China, it will
be Western capitalism that will be responsible - for
that happy outcome, IMHO. :tiphat:

[Yes, this, too, is an ‘assertion.’ ]

reen12

 

[StubbleSpark]

reen, accuracy in quoting is a must.

So is making a point.

 

[reen12]

quote: StubbleSpark

reen, accuracy in quoting is a must.

So is making a point.

I’ll leave it to the readers of this thread, to
render decisions on both the ‘accuracy’ of the quote
[your post # ] and that of ‘making a point.’

Best,

reen12

 

[reen12]

quote: StubbleSpark

reen, accuracy in quoting is a must.

You are, of course, correct. I attributed the quotes
in error…switching Comrade Andrei’s and yours.

You have my apology, for that error, on my part,
as does Comrade Andrei. :tiphat:

Best,

reen12

 

[Cathy]

I just came from an apologetics lecture by Tim Staples…awesome!

The pastor at the church which invited him gave his own
testimony of conversion to the Catholic Faith. He said he grew up in a country where Budhism, Taoism and Confucianism were prevalent. He said he almost became a monk in one of those religions, until he perceived that each of them was empty.

Jesus alone claimed to be God, “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” I’ve never seen a man so on fire for the Faith as that
Catholic priest tonight. Even Tim Staples took a second spot by that measure, as great a job as he did!

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Well, yes, but that is of course debateable. The fact remains that there are many ways of practicing Christianity even though each group may consider the others heretical.

Let us just say that Christianity is right for a second. If Christianity is the correct religion, then one os those sects MUST be true-there is no way around it. Thus, it doesn’t matter if heretics denounce heretics-the True Church is Truth despite any and all attacks leveled against it.

Consider it an education that can be formed and fitted to any situation.

And thus the poison in it. It is obvious why some people may say, “well Christianity and Buddhism believe in practically the same thing” because Buddhism claims no absolute Truth statement. However, Christianity does. Thus, we must either accept the claim of Christianity or deny it. Buddhism and Christianity cannot assimilate into each other.

Let us use the example from earlier. The Graeco-Roman religion assimilated into or had other religions assimilate into it-save for the monotheistic faith of Israel. Once this monotheism became accessible to all peoples, Jew and Gentile, in Christianity there had to be a showdown. Either paganism would triumph and Christianity would die out, or paganism needed to go. We know what happened there. Thus it will also be with the Eastern relgions.

To be continued…

 

[StubbleSpark]

ahimsaman72:

The Buddha said that “mind precedes all things”. Mind is the maker of all things. “I am what I think” is a proper Buddhist concept. We exist - yes.

Enlightenment era concepts like “I think, therefore I am.” are heretical and run contrary to the laws of metaphysics which state quite clearly that nothing (save God) causes itself. I cannot will myself into existence any more than a mountain can. Everything is caused, nothing is caused by itself.

“Mind precedes all things” only makes sense if it is already understood that you are strictly talking about perception – the internal thought processes you use to understand the world. Otherwise, the sentence makes no grammatical sense – you saying each of our minds (which are things) precede all other things (including the other minds).

Buddhism, Gnosticism, and scientism all try to understand existence by first calling into question how we perceive reality. This is what I mean when I say Western thought stakes its claim first on the fact that things exist. Some might call this a “chicken and egg” argument, but I think it has profound implications.

Also, in my above comparison regarding the universality of Catholicism versus the limited nature of Buddhism, I was not trying to compare apples and oranges. It is just that, as Catholics, we are taught that Truth has his own nature – we recognize it when we see it. So we can also recognize when a given belief system has a little truth, some truth, or in the case of Catholicism the fullness of the truth.

So the argument that Buddhism remains inconstant – changing fundamental “truths” depending on the place and time, that its full practice is limited to a given extrinsic cultural mindset, that certain personality types cannot as easily access those truths … all these arguments are indeed condemning for the Catholic mind. They are big red flags that say: seek elsewhere.

All I am saying, is that if you want to win Catholic converts to Buddhism, you would want to downplay those traits.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Enlightenment era concepts like “I think, therefore I am.” are heretical and run contrary to the laws of metaphysics which state quite clearly that nothing (save God) causes itself.

I used that example (incorrectly, I might add) in one of my previous posts. What I meant by it was to say that we indeed exist as individual persons. Good clarification.

 

[ahimsaman72]

ComradeAndrei:

Let us just say that Christianity is right for a second. If Christianity is the correct religion, then one os those sects MUST be true-there is no way around it. Thus, it doesn’t matter if heretics denounce heretics-the True Church is Truth despite any and all attacks leveled against it.

By the traditional laws of logic, yes, this would be the case. And some would argue that logic is all we have to go by to arrive at truth (or reality). Buddhism doesn’t accept that totally. That seems like purely intellectual grasping. Experience determines reality in Buddhism, not intellectualizing or applying apparent laws to what we think reality should be.

I think the big difference here is that Christians believe you can objectively come to absolute truth by using the same tools you use to come to a mathematical solution. “This” is right, so “that” must be wrong. That’s an argument that is very old, but just because we come to those conclusions doesn’t ultimately mean they are indeed absolutely true.

(Hypothetically) I may think my wife is cheating on me, but is that true? Do I have undeniable evidence of the fact? Do I trust what others say or do I get the evidence myself? Until I know, that is - experience for myself that she is cheating or not cheating, my life - my reality is hell. Now, when I know for sure either way, my reality (truth) fits the absolute reality (truth). The absolute truth was that she was not cheating. But, until I found that out, my perceptions were this way or that way.

And thus the poison in it. It is obvious why some people may say, “well Christianity and Buddhism believe in practically the same thing” because Buddhism claims no absolute Truth statement. However, Christianity does. Thus, we must either accept the claim of Christianity or deny it. Buddhism and Christianity cannot assimilate into each other.

One mans poison is another’s anecdote. I don’t believe Buddhism and Christianity believe in practically the same thing. Buddhism has no pope or governing body that claims absolute authority, though the Theravada tradition is the oldest surviving sect and their teachings carry a lot of weight. For some, they can accept truths in Christianity and truths in Buddhism and be fine with that, so it can be a false dichotomy.

Let us use the example from earlier. The Graeco-Roman religion assimilated into or had other religions assimilate into it-save for the monotheistic faith of Israel. Once this monotheism became accessible to all peoples, Jew and Gentile, in Christianity there had to be a showdown. Either paganism would triumph and Christianity would die out, or paganism needed to go. We know what happened there. Thus it will also be with the Eastern relgions.

To be continued…

 

[Mickey]

ahimsaman72:

I think the big difference here is that Christians believe you can objectively come to absolute truth by using the same tools you use to come to a mathematical solution. “This” is right, so “that” must be wrong. That’s an argument that is very old, but just because we come to those conclusions doesn’t ultimately mean they are indeed absolutely true.

You have pointed out something here that can be a problem. The intellect and logic are important, but we must also rely on the mystical attributes of the faith (found in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy). When this balance of scholasticism (intellect) and mysticism (heart) is realized, we can truly bask in the fullness of truth.

Always keep your mind collected in your heart.
St Theofan the Recluse

**When we strive with diligent sobriety to keep watch over our rational faculties, to control and correct them, how else can we succeed in this task except by collecting our mind, which is dispersed abroad through the senses, and bringing it back into the world within, into the heart itself, which is the storehouse of all our thoughts? **
St. Gregory Palamas

Blessings to you ahimsaman,
Mickey

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

You have pointed out something here that can be a problem. The intellect and logic are important, but we must also rely on the mystical attributes of the faith (found in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy). When this balance of scholasticism (intellect) and mysticism (heart) is realized, we can truly bask in the fullness of truth.

Always keep your mind collected in your heart.
St Theofan the Recluse

**When we strive with diligent sobriety to keep watch over our rational faculties, to control and correct them, how else can we succeed in this task except by collecting our mind, which is dispersed abroad through the senses, and bringing it back into the world within, into the heart itself, which is the storehouse of all our thoughts? **
St. Gregory Palamas

Blessings to you ahimsaman,
Mickey

Blessings to you my friend.

You are correct. Faith and reason are the tools to use to come to the truth. When reason alone is the used as the measuring stick to truth, we lose. When faith alone is used, again we lose. I’m glad you pointed this out.

Peace…

 

[ComradeAndrei]

By the traditional laws of logic, yes, this would be the case. And some would argue that logic is all we have to go by to arrive at truth (or reality). Buddhism doesn’t accept that totally. That seems like purely intellectual grasping. Experience determines reality in Buddhism, not intellectualizing or applying apparent laws to what we think reality should be.

The ability to reason is one of the main things that God gave us and separates us from the brute beast. If you want to throw that out, very well, but then you really have no argument. Truth is absolute, that is all there is to it. It doesn’t matter what I think it is or what you think it is, Truth is Truth. Reason and logic get us a whole lot closer to Truth than experience. Experience counts for diddly because it is so easily swayed by bias and preconceived notions of every sort.

Knowledge is often superior to experience. I know that living a life of sin is bad for me, spiritually and often physically. I do not need to experience it to know it, and it would proift me more the less I do experience it.

I think the big difference here is that Christians believe you can objectively come to absolute truth by using the same tools you use to come to a mathematical solution. “This” is right, so “that” must be wrong. That’s an argument that is very old, but just because we come to those conclusions doesn’t ultimately mean they are indeed absolutely true.

Well, reason AND faith get us to Truth. We have seen, begining in the 18th century the divorce of Reason and Faith in Western philosophy-and the disasterous results.

God gave us the ability to reason, and he also revealed Himself to us through His Son, Christ Jesus. We have the ability to ascertain natural Truth, and we have Divine Truth as revealed to us by God Himself. Thus it naturally follows that Truth is obtainable, not only possibly but as an absolute necessity.

You can reject the premise that logic illuminated by Christ gets us absolute Truth, but I can just as easily reject any premise of Buddhism. That gets nothing done.

One mans poison is another’s anecdote. I don’t believe Buddhism and Christianity believe in practically the same thing. Buddhism has no pope or governing body that claims absolute authority, though the Theravada tradition is the oldest surviving sect and their teachings carry a lot of weight.

OK that you don’t believe so, but plenty of people have gotten this thought in their head. The point is, Buddhism’s “inclusiveness” is its error. That is what may guide less knowledgable folks away from the Straight and Narrow.

For some, they can accept truths in Christianity and truths in Buddhism and be fine with that, so it can be a false dichotomy.

No, it can’t be a false dichotomy. I do believe people often set up false dichotomies, but this isn’t one of them.

I shall now continue from my last post.As I said with the Graeco-Roman religions, Christianity poses a challenge to any opposing religion-Christ is the ONLY way, there is absolutely no other. Thus, you CANNOT accept “truths” in Christianity and Buddhism because they do not work together.

Let us begin with the Truth of Christianity-Jesus Christ. Christianity CANNOT be true and cannot have anything of real moral value if Christ is not God. If Christ is not God, then He cannot be a “great moral teacher” because He would be a liar. He clearly claimed to be God and if this claim is not true, than what about all of His teachings that follow?

Now you can say, “Well, Truth is Truth no matter who says it. If Hitler says ‘2+2=4’-is it not still true?”

That is true, however, than it is not Christianity’s truth. Someone else has the fullness of Truth.

We claim absolute Truth when it comes to Salvation. We also say we respect the “truths” found in Buddhism (and we do) but not because they have something we don’t but rather they have something that we have in its fullness. Buddhism does not profit eternal salvation one bit in and of itself, however, it can be a means in that it is a yearning of Mankind that points toward the True Gospel. Mankind knows there is something more than this temporal life, and God is pleased when men seek to find HIm and follow what they find with total conviction.

That being said, Buddhism can never be the Way, the Truth, and the Life-only Christ can. Thus, we respect the little bit of light that the Buddha found-but we already have the whole Light with Christ in His Church.

 

[ahimsaman72]

StubbleSpark:

Enlightenment era concepts like “I think, therefore I am.” are heretical and run contrary to the laws of metaphysics which state quite clearly that nothing (save God) causes itself. I cannot will myself into existence any more than a mountain can. Everything is caused, nothing is caused by itself.

First, the original teaching of the Buddha as stated in the Dhammapada presents this concept before any enlightenment period. Here is what the Buddha is reported to have said (a translation) and was transmitted orally after the Buddha’s death around 483 BCE and written down in 1st century BCE:

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.

This can be found here :http://www.angelfire.com/ca/SHALOM/dhammapada.html

Secondly, is metaphysics the only path to knowledge and understanding? If that is your measuring stick alone, then we cannot produce any meaningful dialogue. Do you understand how God made the world - exactly? You know the end result, not how he did it. When you look at a flower do you know how it was made? Can you detail the construction from start to finish? The questions are endless. Is the Christian God the only “causer” of existence? My mother and father caused me into existence. You cannot reproduce yourself, but you can reproduce someone like you. Even if you posit that God is the ultimate cause, you can only do so in faith.

“Mind precedes all things” only makes sense if it is already understood that you are strictly talking about perception – the internal thought processes you use to understand the world. Otherwise, the sentence makes no grammatical sense – you saying each of our minds (which are things) precede all other things (including the other minds).

We are all cut from the same cloth. All things in the universe are part of one another. What is the body? A collection of bones, muscle, water, blood and of course self-awareness (a simplified definition for discussion only). Other animals have some of the same characteristics. Water is in lakes, rivers, the air, your body. The same element exists all over and pervades all of existence. Mind is not matter. Brains are only part of the mind. “mind” is the thoughts - the intelligence. The brain tissue is simply the form (again, unscientific explanation for discussion).

Buddhism, Gnosticism, and scientism all try to understand existence by first calling into question how we perceive reality. This is what I mean when I say Western thought stakes its claim first on the fact that things exist. Some might call this a “chicken and egg” argument, but I think it has profound implications.

The chicken and the egg are the same. They just exist in different forms. That’s how humans and the universe are. The teaching of the Buddha is really very simple. You know the four noble truths.

The Buddha said (1) "life is unsatisfactory…suffering permeates all of existence. Even if you have pleasure now, it cannot be forever so. (my interpretation). (2) this suffering, unsatisfactoriness, short-term pleasure has a cause, that cause is craving or attachment which is derived from ignorance (not knowing reality). (3) there is an end to suffering - a path that ends this suffering and (4) that path is the noble eightfold path. It is a very simple, straightforward diagnostic understanding of existence.

cont…