Christianity for Buddhists

[Ahimsa]

An interview with the author of Christianity for Buddhists (published in 2002 by St Austin’s Press) Comments from readers are most welcome.

** Why did you write Christianity for Buddhists**?

I wanted to share my experience with others. I had been drawn to Eastern mysticism since my youth in the late 1960s, and had become increasingly involved in Buddhism, studying under two very powerful teachers. Yet the deeper I got into it the more uneasy I felt and that I was at odds with my Christian roots. In the end I had to face the fact that in all but ideology I was thoroughly stamped in the Christian mould. It turned out that for me Buddhism was a preparation for my rediscovery of God and Christ. I felt that if it could be that for me, it could be that for others too, and at the same time I might in some small way be able to help the two religions to value each other and dispel mutual suspicion born of ignorance of each other’s depths.

 

[ahimsaman72]

An interview with the author of Christianity for Buddhists (published in 2002 by St Austin’s Press) Comments from readers are most welcome.

Why did you write Christianity for Buddhists?

I wanted to share my experience with others. I had been drawn to Eastern mysticism since my youth in the late 1960s, and had become increasingly involved in Buddhism, studying under two very powerful teachers. Yet the deeper I got into it the more uneasy I felt and that I was at odds with my Christian roots. In the end I had to face the fact that in all but ideology I was thoroughly stamped in the Christian mould. It turned out that for me Buddhism was a preparation for my rediscovery of God and Christ. I felt that if it could be that for me, it could be that for others too, and at the same time I might in some small way be able to help the two religions to value each other and dispel mutual suspicion born of ignorance of each other’s depths.

I have to read this book. The quote you provided here is identical to my situation now. Thanks for sharing this!

Peace…

 

[Ahimsa]

ahimsaman72:

I have to read this book. The quote you provided here is identical to my situation now. Thanks for sharing this!

Peace…

No problemo!

 

[reen12]

Hi, Ahimsa,

Here’s a pretty lame response, to what you’ve posted.
[low energy, today ]

From age 32 to age, say, 40, I read a great deal on
Buddhism [particularly Zen], some Taoistic material…
I continued to read on same, but not as heavily,
after that time.

I found it fascinating.

One of the reasons I found it so, was that it seemed
to treat “experience” - with more respect - than did
the philosophic/religious traditons of the West.
*

However, precinding from this evaluation, the
perrenial questions of mankind did not seem
to be addressed, with sufficient profundity, by Buddism.

-why am I here
-what occurs at the end of life
-where do “shoulds” come from, in life,
and, more to the point - where is the
authority, that acts as guarantor of these
“shoulds”
-what is the meaning of suffering, in life

I find that the answer, to these questions, is
not a set of propositions - but a Being, God…
and, for Christians, Jesus, Messiah.

The proposition:
quote: reen12

[Buddhism]… seemed to treat “experience” - with more respect - than did the philosophic/religious traditons of the West.

is a wholly different topic, than the one, addressed
in this thread.

Thanks for alerting us to the existence of the work:
Christianity for Buddhists.

Kindest thoughts,

reen*

 

[buzzcut]

It’s a good idea for a book, but I didn’t think much of the interview with the author. At least half the interview was about Buddhism rather than Christianity. I hope for his sake the book is more interesting than the interview.

 

[Ahimsa]

reen12:

However, precinding from this evaluation, the
perrenial questions of mankind did not seem
to be addressed, with sufficient profundity, by Buddism.

-why am I here
-what occurs at the end of life
-where do “shoulds” come from, in life,
and, more to the point - where is the
authority, that acts as guarantor of these
“shoulds”
-what is the meaning of suffering, in life

I find that the answer, to these questions, is
not a set of propositions - but a Being, God…
and, for Christians, Jesus, Messiah.

Kindest thoughts,

reen

Hi reen,

I initially noticed that too: that Buddhism doesn’t apparetly seem to address those issues in a whole lot of depth.

But I think the main reason for the apparent lack is due to the fact that only a select portion of Buddhist texts have actually been translated and widely disseminated in English. Most the texts translated only represent the tip of the iceberg, and focus on the main issues of Buddhism. It’ll take time (at least 100 more years) for Buddhist culture to begin to be more widely understood in English-speaking, Christian-dominated cultures. For instance, not too many Westerners know about the Jataka tales, roughly 500 stories about the Buddha’s past lives, when he did deeds exemplifying various virtues (like courage, faith, compassion, etc.). Knowledge of such writings will give a more well-rounded idea of who the Buddha is.

Just to provide my own Buddhist-informed responses to your questions:

1. Why am I here? I’m here to do what is good, abandon what is harmful, and purify my intentions. I’m here to take the path that leads to the end of dukkha, to the highest happiness. I’m here to help all other beings find a way out of dukkha. I’m here to be generous, to share my wealth and knowledge, to be truthful and loving, to express gratitude and faith.
2. What occurs at the end of life? After dying, one could take rebirth on earth, in a hell, in a heaven, or in some other realm. (How long you stay in any one realm – even if you stay there for eons – depends on various factors.) Rebirths continue until one realizes nirvana.
3. The authority that guarantees the “shoulds”: the Buddha would be that authority.
4. What is the meaning of suffering in life? I like to re-phrase this question as, What does suffering mean? Suffering means that one has an opportunity to renounce, to surrender.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Ahimsa:

I too have studied eastern thought in college when I was a tad agnostic. What sounds so wise and appealing when rigorously tested prove to be very incomplete. I agree with Catholic theologians who have commented on the spirituality between Buddhism and Catholicism that the farthest reach of the Buddhist which is becoming nothing is the starting point of Christianity. They strive to be nothing. We know we are nothing compared to the greatness of God but the wonder of it all is that we are invited to join him in communion. The trajectory of most eastern philosophies is self annihilation without the balance of divine filiation which is Catholicism.

I’m sure the others can add to this point.

in XT.

 

[Mickey]

Ahimsa:

I had been drawn to Eastern mysticism since my youth in the late 1960s, and had become increasingly involved in Buddhism, studying under two very powerful teachers. Yet the deeper I got into it the more uneasy I felt and that I was at odds with my Christian roots.

I often wonder how many people are aware that the search for Eastern mysticism is completely fulfilled in the Catholic Church through the Eastern (rite).

 

[reen12]

Hi, Ahimsa,

Always enjoy reading your posts!

quote: Ahimsa

1. The authority that guarantees the “shoulds”: the Buddha would be that authority.

I had an ongoing conversation, over many years,
with a person, about the inability to “generate
an ought” without that ought having it’s source
in Divinity.

Because, the logical response, to one who would
generate an “ought” is: “Who says?”

Ethics is the realm of philosophy [and Siddhartha
Gautama was, to me, an ethicist.]

Still, a far cry, I think, from words- engraved in
stone - that begin:
“I AM the Lord, thy God…”

Now *there’s *a set of ‘shalt’s’ and ‘shalt nots’ that
can be made to stick!

Every best wish, Ahimsa,

reen :tiphat:

PS: I read the link that you provided, and my
head was swimming, trying to ‘unpack’ what
he was saying.

And, BTW, I appreciated:
quote: Ahimsa

1. What is the meaning of suffering in life? I like to re-phrase this question as, What does suffering mean?

It’s the kind of thing I meant, when saying:
quote: reen12

One of the reasons I found it so, was that it seemed
to treat “experience” - with more respect - than did
the philosophic/religious traditons of the West.
**

 

[Gnosis]

Buddhism remains one of the most integral aspects of my spirituality. It has provided me with a morality that is rooted in the observation of cause and effect and the teachings of the Buddha have brought me a sense of inner freedom unlike I have ever known.
However, I have found myself to be compelled by Christianity at the same time, as well as Hinduism and Gnosticism. I see God as the very impulse of life, the ground of being, the ultimate reality of our existence. We flow from him, and he is inherent in us and in everything. This is where I prefer Eastern thought on the issues of salvation, or what I would rather call liberation. I do not look for ‘entrance into heaven’, rather I seek to free myself from the bondage of desire, to dispel the illusion of our apartness, and find wholeness in the realization that I am inseperable from the Whole.

When Eastern thought speaks of “becoming nothing” or annhilating ourselves, it means so only in the sense of the “illusion of an independent existence”.

I myself do not seek a heaven or “a place” but a state of existence that is in complete union with God, so much so that it can no longer be said that “I” exist. Traditionally, this is illustrated with a raindrop slipping into the sea. The raindrop (the percieved individual) is of the same essence of the ocean (what we may call God). When the rain drop enters the water it still ‘exists’, but no longer as something separate.

In Buddhism, nirvana is so much more than not existing. It is the supreme state of existence, which can only be achieved through the extinguishing of the desires that fuel the pervasive illusion of our apartness.

I think we can learn from every religion, rather than just stick with one, we can see that each has something valid to say.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Gnosis:

Thanks for your explaination. The drop of water into the ocean sounds really good as an ideal. I used to subscribe to it. There’s a problem with this though. When we drop that drop into the ocean eastern thought says that we become one with the universe and in surrendering we actually come to becoming as great as the universe, disappearing into each other.

Catholic teaching explains it a little different. God created each person in his image and likeness. When the beatific vision comes(when we get to Heaven), we do not merge into one mass of being, rather, we come into a full and complete unity with the creator of the universe yet retain all that is beautiful, noble and true in our individuality. So, the person is amplified and unified to God rather than merged and dissipated in the created universe.

These two will have agreements on some points in morality but on the overall they go to two different directions.

Please make a comment, would like to continue this discussion.

in XT.

 

[reen12]

quote: AquinasXVI

…we do not merge into one mass of being, rather, we come into a full and complete unity with the creator of the universe yet retain all that is beautiful, noble and true in our individuality.

I think that that was well stated, AquinasXVI.

Thanks,

reen12

 

[Gnosis]

*Catholic teaching explains it a little different. God created each person in his image and likeness. When the beatific vision comes(when we get to Heaven), we do not merge into one mass of being, rather, we come into a full and complete unity with the creator of the universe yet retain all that is beautiful, noble and true in our individuality. So, the person is amplified and unified to God rather than merged and dissipated in the created universe. *

Of course it is our desire to sustain our individual traits. I used to subscribe to the Christian idea of heaven, that I had a “soul” that would one day exist with God.

But I have to come to the realization: What is my self? How do I define myself? When we consider heaven, we realize that it is first of all a place, that it is beyond time. I wondered, what if I removed myself from time and placed my self in paradise, how may “traits” that define me would I retain? I wouldn’t be able to think, because to muster a thought requires a time frame, all thoughts would then occur at once (but I suppose even that would require a single moment). I wondered, what would I laugh at? What would I get angry at? What kind of relationships would exist?

I think if you truly analyze who you are, you will realize that the very characteristics that define you can only exist in a temporary, time bound, place bound world. So much of who we are, or what we consider ourselves to be, is rooted in how we react to certain things (ie. our humor). Remove us from this world and I do not think I would be able to truly call what is left of “me”, me.

It seems then, that what I consider to be “myself” is only temporary, is only the product of my interaction in this world. What is the soul then, if not the very traits by which we define ourselves here on earth? And if those traits can not survive death, what of us does?

You can speak of this existence where we “retain a sense of individuality” while existing in a perfected unity with the Lord. And i will say it is possible. But can you, in any way, actually envision it? Can you picture it? I don’t think anyone can. We usually say we simply can’t know. It is “beyond us”. And I think that is the key word, it is “beyond us”. We can’t envision it because it is beyond the grasp of the individual, the individual can not conceive a reality beyond that of its own existence. And what we might call heaven, I believe, is the state of existence in which there is no “this” or “that”. It is the supreme state of consciousness.

Also, from my spiritual experience, I have realized that any profound experience of God that I have had is an experience of selflessness. I transcend myself, I feel like I am moving beyond myself, and the distinction between “this” and “that” blurs until it is no more. The closer I get to God, the smaller this distinction between “Him” and “I” feel.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Gnosis:

Thank you.

I have to acknowledge that yes, the infinite experience of heaven is beyond us. St. Paul says: Eye has not seen nor ears have heard what God has for those who love him. And yes, how are we to presume our earthly traits confined in time translate to the eternal?

This is the precise point in which Christ comes into the picture.

Christ the redeemer of man, fully reveals man to himself.

Christ who was born, lived on this earth, claimed he was God, died and rose again, then ascended into heaven. He revealed that our humanity and our ethos are relevant to eternity. He being God becoming man, we can say “validates” the human existence. That who we form ourselves on earth is who we will be eternally. Furthermore, the resurrection gave us an insight on our fleshly reality…that we retain it like he did and take it with us like he did. The over spiritualization of existence is off balance. Our fleshly reality may be temporary this side of eternity but somehow as he demonstrated, we get the body back. As Catholics we are not to degrade the dignity of the human experience as meaningless in light of eternity.

I think there’s a little danger when we say that the gap between God and I are so narrow that I “feel” like God. That we are so close to him that we know how God feels. We feel his presence when we are granted this grace but we cannot translate that as an equality with Him. We are always and rightfully so creatures. We can love and marvel and peacefully enjoy the presence of God which is promised us in Heaven but we cannot delude ourselves either of being equal to the creator.

I think you will enjoy the Theology of the Body by John Paul II. I highly recommend it. Along with that St. Thomas has beautiful points for us to consider what the beatific vision is.

Do continue. I’m enjoying your exchange.

in XT.

 

[Gnosis]

My worldview does not render my existence as an individual to be meaningless in any sense. I certainly believe life is to be enjoyed and that I should experience what I can to its fullest capacity. However, I strive to have a perspective that is in accordance with reality. My selfish delusion that what I perceive myself to be is somehow infinite or permanent is only a cause of suffering. What I identify as me is completely tied to this sensory world, a world which is in a constant state of flux and change, hence, “I” too am ever changing. Again, I have to ask the question, how is it that you define yourself? What makes you distinctly you? Is it your talents? Your humor? Your insights? Your likes and dislikes? Your temper? Your relationships? I would assume that it involves all of these things. Yet these traits do not exist independently of other people, or the environment in which you live. If you had been raised in a jungle with no human contact, I expect that you would be a rather different person. You might say that your soul would be the same, however, that would exclude your personality or interactions with others as stemming from your soul.
Secondly, Christian theology holds that heaven is a state of perfection, and we humans exist as perfected beings. Likewise, this was the state of the garden before the fall. I don’t know about you, but perfection seems completely boring to me as an individual. Flaws are what make us, as people, interesting (in part). If we lived without flaws, if we all existed in perfection, then how would we interact? What meaning would our interaction hold? There would be no humor, there would be no conflict, there would be no death. Without death and destruction so many of those emotions and states of being, such as grieving, that define humanity would no longer exist. What would we do? Would we just stand around and worship God all day? How could we, as individual conscious beings, act? What could possibly satisfy us? I perceive apartness to be a flaw. The idea of everyone existing as separate for eternity feels flawed. Perfection is untainted, undivided, unified. I think heaven is the state of supreme unity, beyond consciousness, beyond apartness, beyond “you” and “I”. We are, in essence, in eternity, all one, all part of the greater Whole. This is why, I believe, we desire relationships, for we can not exist alone, we find meaning only in our interaction with other people. Subconsciously, we see how deep our unity with one another is, and to pull away from it, that is to deny our thirst for human relationships, is to suffer for we are living in contradiction to reality. Jesus once said “Love your neighbor as yourself”. This is not a light statement. Imagine if we loved someone else as our self, placing their every need as high as our own? Imagine that EVERYONE interacted in such a state of selfless love, what then would truly be left of the self, of the individual? To say that God is love, is not to be used lightly, because love demands self sacrifice. Love is the most powerful thing on earth. We are not satisfied with only receiving it, we must give it too. True love is to give without motivation of gain or receiving in return. It is in COMPLETE love that we lose ourselves…for we have given ourselves away completely. Complete love requires this, that we diffuse into others. But it is only in doing this that we truly find our self. Love is sacrifice…a truth demonstrated by Christ.

The very root of the mystic experience is that of self transcendence. For me, my most spiritual moment occurred when I was standing alone in the forest, watching the snow fall thickly. I became almost hypnotized, watching the snowflakes, there for a moment, then indistinguishable upon the ground. I saw the snow, and the distinction between me and what I was watching began to slip, until it felt like I was looking back at “myself”. Any description can only approach it, for language, by its nature, tries to limit and constrict. It can only be a symbol of the experience.

You said: I think there’s a little danger when we say that the gap between God and I are so narrow that I “feel” like God. That we are so close to him that we know how God feels

I’m not sure that you are quite grasping the concept. I am never saying that “I feel like God”. I am saying that the line between me and God disappear, the distinctions between us as separate entities fall away. There is no “God” and there is no “me”, there is no “this or that”, there simply is what simply is; the raw, incomprehensible reality. Any word that implies any kind of separation is because language lacks the ability to bring this reality into description. I simply use words such as “Him” and “Me” as tools to point to something beyond words.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Gnosis:

Thanks again for stating your convictions.

You asked regarding the nature of our beings and how that enters eternity. Christ upon resurrection had his marks from the crucifixion. This should tell us something. The escathological state of man in eternity has distinct idiosyncresies that are taken…all of which at that point reflect the beauty, nobility and truth of God. The life Christ lived on earth is relevant to his life in Heaven when he returned to the Father. It will be like so to us.

The virtues that we aquire here are taken, the sins and vices left behind (post purgatory). Nothing impure can enter heaven.

Secondly, it seems your idea of perfection is the heaven where all is in white, walking on clouds and playing harps. I have to agree, that is boring. You mentioned that it is the imperfections that make us interesting. I have to disagree. When we admire people, it is never for their vices like cursing, temper flares, dishonesty, rudeness, slyness, lies, etc. but rather for their virtues: faith, love, hope, courage, order, sincerity, simplicity, humility, courage, gentleness, levity, loyalty etc. etc. When we see people with these virtues we gravitate to them. If we witness and admire that sanctity in a few people on earth, imagine exploding that exponentially to eternity! How could that be possibly boring?

Apartness in Heaven you mentioned. Heaven is perfect unity between God and man and each person to each other. When we get there we’ll get to know each other. I don’t know where you got that impression of heaven please clarify.

in XT.

 

[Gnosis]

Thanks for responding, I also enjoy this exchange of ideas

I think what needs to be acknowledged is that our world visions are radically different based on what we consider to be the sources of our understanding. You have stated that the physical body must be of relevance beyond this earthly life because Christ retained his crucifixion wounds. Your knowledge is rooted in what you consider to be revelation and history, that certain truths have been revealed by God in confined instances. Whereas I consider my source of knowledge to be from the observation of this world (not to suggest you don’t derive any of your knowledge from this, I am simply suggesting your final source of knowledge is ‘other worldly’). For me, the ‘voice of God’ is a constant, ceaseless vibration, if you will, to which we simply have to tune our minds towards. God’s revelation is not a historic event, nor a unique collection of sacred writings. Rather, revelation is open to us every moment if only we would open our eyes to it and open our ears to receive it. It can be observed every second, in every moment. Thus I do not look to specific instances to determine the reality of our existence, for every truth about the reality of our existence is ready to be observed here and now. I do not look to Christ and say “in this historic moment, Christ was like this” therefore, in eternity, so will I. I do not look to Christ and apply himself to me, as though his life was a living doctrinal statement. No, I consider the most profound truths to be outside of history, persistent, unceasing realities that have always been and always will be available for us to observe. Catholicism looks to Christ as a revelation, as though his very existence amongst was a living breathing revelation of God, one which will never historically be matched. I ask myself, what is it about the human condition that Christ personifies?
As well, our interpretations of the gospels will largely differ. I don’t take the New Testament as God’s word, rather, I see that the New Testament is a fundamental expression of the human condition. It holds no ultimate authority, it is not a statement of what we are to believe, but it is, in writing, others reactions and attempts to comprehend the reality of God. I look to it for insight, for wisdom, for consideration. We must make this essential distinction between our systems of thought. I do not believe in received doctrine, rather I think there are certain conclusions I can make about reality based on observation and unbiased insight, apart from that, I embrace the ambiguity of what you might call God, or what I might refer to as the Ultimate Reality, which is why I refrain from any specific definition of ‘him’.
I suppose I wasn’t quite clear in what I meant about flaws “making people interesting”. Of course it is not the flaws in people that we admire, but it is the flawed nature of us as human beings that, I think, largely fuels the dynamics of our interaction with one another. I wonder, what is virtue if there is no flaws? How does one demonstrate their compassion or sympathy when suffering does not exist? How can one be courageous when there is nothing for which courage is required to overcome? What humility can we offer when each of us are perfected beings?
I’m wondering if you could explain your notion of heaven to me. You said just standing around in white playing harps is indeed boring, but what alternative do you have? From what I can gather, to be in a permanent state of conscious bliss would indeed be very dull, in fact I don’t quite understand how one can be conscious in a state of bliss. Bliss is unconsciousness, for it is pain that awakens us to life. Is heaven a place beyond time? Is it a place at all? Do we eat? Do we laugh? Do we cry? Is it physical? Answers to these questions would help me understand your position better.

You said that in heaven we will get to know each other. But I think I have made some very good points about the nature of the self. I still ask you, “what are your defining characteristics?”. If you believe these characteristics to be stemming from your soul, that is, the self that will eternally exist, then I think you will have to make a case to show that these traits did not result from your interactions within this temporal world.

How can perfected beings come to “know one another”, when they all are perfect themselves? What makes the different? What traits distinguish them from one another?

 

[AquinasXVI]

Gnosis:

Sorry for the delay. Been very busy.

You’ve asked many fundamental questions about revelation and the nature of existence. I’ll try to comment on some of them now.

Given that we are creatures born in a particular place and period of history our natural perspective of the world would be limited to what we can see and experience. It’s like trying to look at the universe through a cloudy night, we only individually see so many stars but not all of them. Therefore, many universal truths which St. Thomas would say are available through contemplation (like what you say), the fact of the matter is our limited years and brain are not fully capable of ascending to the fullness of truth. The nature, will, and attributes of God and man has to be revealed to us by none other than the creator himself. And this he did. The Word made flesh! So as much as I agree with you that truths are to be experienced and understood through our subjective living out of our lives (phenomenology), the objective truths need to be given to us by God. We could have never guessed a Trinitarian God who created the universe out of nothing. All the indegenous myths of all ancient cultures attempted to explain God and creation and came up with all sorts of wild gods and even wilder creation stories.

Christ reveals to man who God is and even more, he reveals to us what (man) we are. In regard to your asking what I think I am. Gratefully, this is explained by the church…I don’t have to guess. We are corporeal spirits. We are a unique composite of soul and body. When these two separate we call that death. Furthermore, as revealed by Christ, we are invited and inclined to live in communion with God which explains why at every age man is preoccupied with religion (most attempts are failures because the assumptions are mistaken). We are mede in the image and likeness of God. The more we live up to this original dignity, the happier and truer we become.

You asked what in the human condition does Christ personify? First is that we have free will, that we are each one unique and suffer from solitude, that we have the natural and supernatural desire to commune with something greater than us (ultimately God) and other beings like us and that God exists and dies to prove to us that he loves us. He also personified to the definitive sense all of the virtues. Virtues which align and make us beautiful, noble and true.

Heaven? As St. Thomas wrote extensively about the beatific vision, God granted him a peek. After which he said that what he has written is like straw. It means it is a mystery that we hope for and surpass all of our greatest imagination of pure happiness. In the theology of the body by John Paul II, he explains it as a permeation of the spirit of God in and through our physical bodies(post resurrection). It is granted by theologians that whatever we can conjure up, no syntax will suffice in describing Heaven although there are some assumptions that can be made as to what it is not. Being bored is not one of the assumptions.

You adressed how virtues can flourish without flaws. Well, I would simply say that in a symphonic orchestra, when all of the instruments are played properly the music transcends just the singular sound of individual instruments. I think we’ll both agree that if one violinist goes and plays a different piece the whole sound gets discordant. Our world in the present is a cacophany of symphonic and discordant sounds, yet we do not fail to find the good in it. What more when all are in harmony in working towards the good, beautiful and true? The achievements of humanity can only be dreamed of. Also with this analogy each instrument is different from the others, each individual do have characteristics that are unique to the person yet still playing in harmony with the orchestra. Likewise, in heaven we do not become perfect robots but perfect people.

I’ll stop right here. Thanks for giving me things to ponder and respond to. Hope you check this again.

I have to at this point ask you a couple of questions. What do you think man is? What is the ultimate destiny in buddhism that you agree with?

in XT.

 

[Neithan]

In keeping with the pastoral teaching of Nostra Aetate, I do not reject anything which is good and true in Buddhism, as with any other eastern or western pagan religion. When it comes down to it, I see the great eastern philosophies of Buddha, Lao Tse and Confucius like I do the western philosophies of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. They all have elements of truth from different angles.

While I am absolutely in favour of approaching Christianity from many different cultures and philosophical viewpoints, I wince at any attempt to syncretise fundamentally different religious worldviews. There is one great teaching of Buddhism which I must reject: reincarnation, the transmigration of souls. This simply is irreconcilable with Christ’s resurrection. We do not have many different bodies and many different lives here on earth, we have one life, one body which is essentially attached to our individual souls and forms an essential part of our self-identity. Other than that, I admire many aspects of the Buddha’s thought, and am not averse to supposing that he was touched by the Holy Spirit.

Mickey:

I often wonder how many people are aware that the search for Eastern mysticism is completely fulfilled in the Catholic Church through the Eastern (rite).

Which one? Byzantine, Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, or Chaldean?

 

[Neithan]

I was just thinking how terribly sad it is that there is no distinct east Orient rite in the Church. This could have beautifully ‘baptised’ the traditions of the Far East, much like the Roman and Byzantine rites with the Greco-Roman traditions. You can read an interesting history here in the old Catholic Encyclopedia (see esp. “THE QUESTION OF RITES”).

What an opportunity lost! I think this is in part the fault of the excessive Chinese persecution of Christianity (to the point of extinction in the early centuries), as well as the overreaction of Popes during the Jesuit missions to Chinese practices which could possibly have led to heresy. Instead of abolishing their distinct practices entirely and enforcing the standard Roman rite, it would have been much better to simply weed out or correct what was not orthodox. If left to the Jesuits this could have been accomplished as they were much in favour of a native rite, but unfortunately the Emperors were executing them.
What do the Chinese Orthodox use? The Byzantine rite?