Question about Christianity vs. Buddhism

[johnz123]

So I’m a Catholic, and I read a book by G.K Chesterton called “Orthodoxy” which is a pretty good book. However there is one chapter where he goes off and heavily criticizes Buddhism. Specifically, he says that Buddhism teaches us that we ARE our neighbor, whereas Christianity teaches us that we are separate and DISTINCT from our neighbor. So I thought to myself ok this all fine and dandy. But then I noticed some strange similarities. For example we as Catholics often say the Christ is in all of us.
Even this quote from Matthew reflects this:

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,”

So my question is given these similarities, is the Buddhist concept of everybody being of the "same consciousness” actually true and the same in Christianity? Or am I just getting theologically confused here?

 

[johnz123]

I also wanted to add that a lot of spiritual teachers fluent in eastern wisdom tend to assert this idea that we are all of the same “consciousness”. I’m wondering if as a Catholic I should reject this idea or if as I have demonstrated above, there could be some legitimacy to this?

 

[Hatikvah]

I also wanted to add that a lot of spiritual teachers fluent in eastern wisdom tend to assert this idea that we are all of the same “consciousness”. I’m wondering if as a Catholic I should reject this idea or if as I have demonstrated above, there could be some legitimacy to this?

The concept of loving our neighbor and of Christ being in us as Christians are to be taken literally as commands, but not as concepts. We have distinct, different consciousnesses: I can be knocked unconscious, but everyone else may remain conscious. The idea of the One consciousness implicitly states that we are God (as some New Age and some Hindu groups claim, as do others), or divine and eternal (as many Indian religions state, like Jainism).

So we must be careful. Of course, love your neighbor, treat them as yourself: but you remain distinct from them, and them from you. It is only in practice that we should end up “the same.”

 

[superwimp]

It may not conform to Catholic or Christian theology but it seems to me that Jesus taught that we are one.
JN 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that
thou hast sent me.
JN 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that
they may be one, even as we are one:
JN 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in
one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast
loved them, as thou hast loved me.

 

[openmind77]

So I’m a Catholic, and I read a book by G.K Chesterton called “Orthodoxy” which is a pretty good book. However there is one chapter where he goes off and heavily criticizes Buddhism. Specifically, he says that Buddhism teaches us that we ARE our neighbor, whereas Christianity teaches us that we are separate and DISTINCT from our neighbor. So I thought to myself ok this all fine and dandy. But then I noticed some strange similarities. For example we as Catholics often say the Christ is in all of us.
Even this quote from Matthew reflects this:

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,”

So my question is given these similarities, is the Buddhist concept of everybody being of the "same consciousness” actually true and the same in Christianity? Or am I just getting theologically confused here?

No, the Hindu/Buddhist idea that we are all of the same consciousness is not at all the same as in Christianity.

n Christianity, God the Creator is distinct and separate from Creation.

In Hinduism/Buddhism all of us including the Gods come from the same underlying substance or reality - this is the concept of nonduality. Here is a website that tries to explain the concept - scienceandnonduality.com/about/nonduality/

 

[Contarini]

So I’m a Catholic, and I read a book by G.K Chesterton called “Orthodoxy” which is a pretty good book. However there is one chapter where he goes off and heavily criticizes Buddhism. Specifically, he says that Buddhism teaches us that we ARE our neighbor, whereas Christianity teaches us that we are separate and DISTINCT from our neighbor. So I thought to myself ok this all fine and dandy. But then I noticed some strange similarities. For example we as Catholics often say the Christ is in all of us.
Even this quote from Matthew reflects this:

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,”

So my question is given these similarities, is the Buddhist concept of everybody being of the "same consciousness” actually true and the same in Christianity? Or am I just getting theologically confused here?

Chesterton is a great writer–indeed, he may have had more impact on me personally than anyone else (he’s largely responsible for turning me toward Catholicism, though it’s taken me as long to get there as it did him, pretty much). But he is not a reliable source for non-Christian religions. He knew Buddhism pretty much entirely through silly people in London who dabbled in Eastern religions (the origin of what we would now call the “New Age” movement), and he was way too dismissive.

There are different Buddhist philosophies. Theravada wouldn’t say that we have the same consciousness, I think. Mahayana, at least some forms of it, would say that there is a “Buddha nature” or “emptiness” underlying all reality, so that’s where the language would be coming from. But the basic Buddhist insight is that we are impermanent selves. So in a sense I am no more “the same person” with the “me” who began to write this sentence than I am the same person with you.

Mahayana flips this on its head and says: “this very lack of permanence, this emptiness, is the underlying reality of everything, which we all share.” It’s a kind of radical apophatic theology–the “emptiness” or “impermanence” is in a mysterious way a kind of primal reality which is also Buddha nature.

At least that’s the sense I make of it. I am probably garbling it all.

But here’s the practical bottom line: Buddhists would root compassion in this realization that we are all interconnected, that none of us is a permanent, independent “self.” It’s not so much that we are all one thing as that we are all fragmented, impermanent collections of impulses, and the one thing we share is that very impermanence or emptiness. My desire to make myself into a separate, self-contained being is the root of my suffering. When I open myself up to identify myself with others, I am moving toward liberation from the chains of my own ego. As you suggest, I find this powerfully similar to Christian language, and indeed in a way even deeper than the way Christians usually put it.

However, the criticism from those who think like Chesterton would be that Buddhists aren’t really loving their neighbors at all, because to love your neighbor you first have to have a sense of yourself as distinct from your neighbor.

I can certainly see the value to this criticism. But I see it more as two sides of the same coin than as a fundamental conflict. We are interrelated with our neighbors–distinct and yet not separate or independent.

 

[Contarini]

The concept of loving our neighbor and of Christ being in us as Christians are to be taken literally as commands, but not as concepts. We have distinct, different consciousnesses: I can be knocked unconscious, but everyone else may remain conscious. The idea of the One consciousness implicitly states that we are God (as some New Age and some Hindu groups claim, as do others), or divine and eternal (as many Indian religions state, like Jainism).

So we must be careful. Of course, love your neighbor, treat them as yourself: but you remain distinct from them, and them from you. It is only in practice that we should end up “the same.”

I think that’s a false and unhelpful dichotomy. Surely our practice should be based on reality.

We are to treat our neighbors as “the same” because on a very profound level we are one–in the self-giving love of God that created us all and made us all dependent on each other.

 

[rossum]

Chesterton … knew Buddhism pretty much entirely through silly people in London who dabbled in Eastern religions (the origin of what we would now call the “New Age” movement), and he was way too dismissive.

Agreed. AIUI he knew the Theosophists, Madame Blavatsky etc. and got a very strange idea of Buddhism.

There are different Buddhist philosophies. Theravada wouldn’t say that we have the same consciousness, I think. Mahayana, at least some forms of it, would say that there is a “Buddha nature” or “emptiness” underlying all reality, so that’s where the language would be coming from. But the basic Buddhist insight is that we are impermanent selves.

The basic Buddhist insight is that we think we have selves, but in fact those selves have no more reality than the water we think we see in a mirage.

So in a sense I am no more “the same person” with the “me” who began to write this sentence than I am the same person with you.

Yes, your memory is a part of you and before your started writing you had no memory of writing the sentence, but after writing it you do have the memory, so the compound entity of yourself has changed because one of the elements of the compound has changed. To amend Heraclitus: ‘You can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and you are not the same you.’

Mahayana flips this on its head and says: “this very lack of permanence, this emptiness, is the underlying reality of everything, which we all share.” It’s a kind of radical apophatic theology–the “emptiness” or “impermanence” is in a mysterious way a kind of primal reality which is also Buddha nature.

The Madhyamika school of the Mahayana emphasises emptiness; the Yogacara school emphasises Buddha nature. Different schools suit different people. The Madhyamika takes an apophatic approach, as you say.

Avalokita, the Holy Lord and Bodhisattva, was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond.

He looked down from on high, He beheld but five heaps, and He saw that in their own-being they were empty.

Here, O Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, whatever is form, that is emptiness, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.

Here, O Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.

– Hrdya Prajnaparamita sutra

At least that’s the sense I make of it. I am probably garbling it all.

You did well, it was a good summary.

rossum

 

[TheAtheist]

Specifically, he says that Buddhism teaches us that we ARE our neighbor,

I see the heavy hitters have come in to correct a few things - so i’ll just make a few footnotes to what Contarini and Rossum have stated.

GK Chesterton seems a bit muddled about his understanding of “same consciousness,” because while something akin to what is meant is upheld in 1 version of Buddhism and a few versions of Hinduism, it isn’t exactly like saying “Bob and Mike have the same thoughts.”

Let’s chop this up - first the Hindu perspective, than a contrasting Buddhist one.

1.) Jiva = “Life principle” with a dash of a “Personal self” ~ sometimes translated into English as “Soul.” The Jiva is an Immaterial, Immortal, Indestructible entity that is embodied and eventually dies only to find itself in another body again. It is highly fallible, prone to confusion, and most likely to act on a combination of one’s desires and fears resulting in the accumulation of negative Karma which results in “Re-death” (a better translation than saying “reincarnation” or “re-birth” because it emphasizes the fear felt by those who believe in such things about being caught forever in Cyclic Existence => Samsara).

The cause of all of these issues = Ignorance. But of what?

2.) Atman = The Universal Soul. Often dubbed the “True Self,” it is often correlated to Brahman which is the underlying transcendental reality of all things. This One Soul/True Soul/whatever acts as the “Ground of All Being” for the multiple Jivas that exist so that Atman exists in All Things.

The whole goal of one rather strongly philosophical strand of Hinduism is to take your little Jiva and purify it enough to the point that it becomes identified with Atman.

So since Atman = Brahman, and if Purified Jiva = Atman, then your Jiva becomes one with Everything. This is the Non-Dualist position upheld in some forms of Hinduism which emphasizes the utter destruction of distinction between yourself, God, and the Universe…

…and then Buddhism comes in and takes a wrecking ball to the whole notion of Jivas and Atman. Early Buddhisms psychological system and cosmology seems to be geared toward undermining the concept of Jiva-Atman that was so prevelant in Indian society at the time.

But there was a specific philosophical school in later Mahayana Buddhism that does possess entities that look quite similar…if you believe the critics of the school that is.

In Yogachara Buddhism, there exists a thing called the ālaya-vijñāna, the “storehouse consciousness” that retains the experiential impressions that you/me/everyone else/perhaps ever conscious thing that has/does/will exist. It is this consciousness that eventually induces “rebirth” in a person.

The Anti-Yogachara Philosophical schools tend to look at this ālaya-vijñāna as nothing more than Atman snuck through the back door and the Tathagatagarba, the potential for Buddha-Nature in all beings, to be Jiva or the Soul also snuck through the back door.

It all gets highly polemical, akin to watching Catholics and Orthodox scream about Thomas Aquinas vs. Gregory Palamas or watching Muslims debate whether the Qur’an is Uncreated and Existed with God/Allah before Time began or if it was created in a Moment of Time by God/Allah.

Suffice it to say though, the above the notions are as close as anyone can get to Chersterton’s assertion that people will have the “same consciousness”…

 

[Vouthon]

But here’s the practical bottom line: Buddhists would root compassion in this realization that we are all interconnected, that none of us is a permanent, independent “self.” It’s not so much that we are all one thing as that we are all fragmented, impermanent collections of impulses, and the one thing we share is that very impermanence or emptiness. My desire to make myself into a separate, self-contained being is the root of my suffering. When I open myself up to identify myself with others, I am moving toward liberation from the chains of my own ego. As you suggest, I find this powerfully similar to Christian language, and indeed in a way even deeper than the way Christians usually put it.

Thank you for this thought provoking and well written post.

I am curious if you discern any similarities with the thought of Blessed Henry Suso, Meister Eckhart’s celebrated disciple?

To me, your statement above and his below are akin:

"…Whoever wants to achieve a true return and become a son in Christ, let him in true detachment turn to Him and away from himself. Then he will come to where he should be - true detachment…

Take note with careful discrimination of these two words: oneself and leave. If you know how to weigh these two words properly, testing their meaning thoroughly to their core and viewing them with true discernment, then you will quickly grasp the truth.

Take, first of all, the first word - oneself or myself - and see what it is. It is important to realize that everyone has five kinds of self…

The fifth - which belongs to a person exclusively as his own - is his personality, one’s individual human self, both with respect to one’s nobility and with respect to accident. **Now, what is it that leads a person astray and robs him of happiness?

It is exclusively this last self . Because of it a person turns outward, away from God and toward himself, when he should be re-turning inward, and he fashions for himself his own self according to what is accidental. He thoughtlessly makes himself a ‘self’ of his own. In his ignorance he appropriates to this ‘self’ what is God’s. This is the direction he takes, and he eventually sinks into sinfulness.

But whoever would really leave this self should have three insights. First, he should turn his thoughtful gaze upon the nothingness of his own self and see that this self, and the self of all things, is a nothing**, removed and excluded from that something which is the sole productive force. The second insight is that it not be overlooked that in this state of utter detachment one’s own self rests entirely upon one’s operative being, (as one realizes) after one becomes concious of oneself again and is not utterly destroyed. The third insight occurs as one becomes less and less, and freely surrenders oneself in everything in which one had become involved by looking to one’s creaturely existence in unfree multiplicity, as opposed to divine truth.

One surrenders oneself in happiness or suffering, in action or inaction in such a way that one loses oneself completely and utterly, withdrawing from oneself irreversibly and becoming one in unity with Christ, so that one always acts at his urging and receives all things and views all things in this unity. And this detached self becomes the same form as Christ about whom the scripture by Paul says, “I live, no longer I, Christ lives in me”. This is what I call a rightly valued self…

Just as the drop of water loses itself, drawing the taste and colour of the wine to and into itself, so it happens that those who are in full possession of blessedness lose all human desires in an inexpressible manner, and they ebb away from themselves and are immersed completely in the divine will. Otherwise, if something of the individual were to remain of which he or she were not completely emptied, scripture could not be true in stating that God shall become all things in all things…"

- Blessed Henry Suso (1295-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest

 

[Contarini]

Thank you for this thought provoking and well written post.

I am curious if you discern any similarities with the thought of Blessed Henry Suso, Meister Eckhart’s celebrated disciple?

To me, your statement above and his below are akin:

Yes, definitely. I was brought up in an evangelical Protestant tradition (Wesleyan Holiness) with significant influence from Rheinland mysticism. I heard this language about giving up the self all the time, but it was infused with a lot of guilt and angst. Ironically, at least as I got the message, giving up the self became another form of effort and a way in which my ego just became stronger, in a swollen, painful sort of way. When you try to kill your false “self,” you wind up feeding it, I think.

Buddhism was extremely spiritually helpful to me because it helped me understand why that was the case. Now I can go back to the Rhenish mystics with a new understanding of their wisdom.

Another factor, to be sure, is just that I’m older and more mature. One problem with my family’s spirituality was that I was taught to surrender myself before I really had a self. Now, after I’ve lived and suffered a bit, all that language makes so much more sense.

Edwin