The Jesus Prayer vs. Mantras

[scapularkid8]

I have a great interest in Buddhism and how it sees the world. I was just curious about others’ thoughts on similarities and differences between the Christian Jesus Prayer (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner) and Buddhist mantras.

This thread’s purpose is not to suggest they are the same, but I was just curious which similarities and differences could be drawn between the two.

 

[Moscati]

I think a major difference is that the goal of Eastern meditation/Buddhism is generally to empty oneself of everything. As I understand it, the goal is to cast off all attachments, i.e. nirvana.

Hesychasts, by contrast, are attempting to fill themselves with something–namely Jesus and his mercy. They do cast off other attachments, but the casting off is not the end in itself. It’s simply a means to make room for more of Christ.

 

[rossum]

I think a major difference is that the goal of Eastern meditation/Buddhism is generally to empty oneself of everything. As I understand it, the goal is to cast off all attachments, i.e. nirvana.

Hesychasts, by contrast, are attempting to fill themselves with something–namely Jesus and his mercy. They do cast off other attachments, but the casting off is not the end in itself. It’s simply a means to make room for more of Christ.

The Master Nan-in had a visitor who came to inquire about Zen. But instead of listening, the visitor kept talking about his own ideas.

After a while, Nan-in served tea. He poured tea into his visitor’s cup until it was full, then he kept on pouring.

Finally the visitor could not restrain himself. “Don’t you see it’s full?” he said. “You can’t get any more in!”

“Just so,” replied Nan-in, stopping at last. “And like this cup, you are filled with your own ideas. How can you expect me to give you Zen unless you offer me an empty cup?”
The Hesychasts have the right start.

rossum

 

[aspirant]

I was just curious about others’ thoughts on similarities and differences between the Christian Jesus Prayer (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner) and Buddhist mantras.

The greatest similarity, I think, is that the people who pray them believe the practice can be transforming. The most obvious difference, it seems to me, is that the first addresses Jesus and the latter do not. I do not know enough about the meaning and use of mantras in Buddhism to say much more.

I think a major difference is that the goal of Eastern meditation/Buddhism is generally to empty oneself of everything. As I understand it, the goal is to cast off all attachments, i.e. nirvana.

While I don’t know much about the meaning and use of mantras in Buddhism, I have studied a bit about Buddhism, and I don’t think this is an entirely fair portrayal. In Buddhism, Nirvana is the “Absolute Truth” or “Ultimate Reality.” The liberated experience it, but human words cannot adequately describe it, so negative (apophatic) terms (“not this, not that”) are usually used instead.

Edward Conze has noted that when positive (cataphatic) language is used to describe Nirvana in Buddhist texts, they say that “Nirvana is permanent, stable, imperishable, immovable, ageless, deathless, unborn, and unbecome, that it is power, bliss and happiness, the secure refuge, the shelter, and the place of unassailable safety; that it is the real Truth and the supreme Reality; that it is the Good, the supreme goal and the one and only consummation of our life, the eternal, hidden and incomprehensible Peace.” (Quoted in Huston Smith & Philip Novak’s Buddhism: A Concise Introduction.) As one Theravadan scholar puts it: “Truth is not a result or an effect. It is not produced like a mystic, spiritual, mental state… TRUTH IS. NIRVANA IS.” Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh, similarly, calls Nirvana the “ground of being.” But apophatic terms are preferred, precisely because this reality cannot be comprehended.

The nearest analog for Nirvana in Christianity would be God. Apophatic language for God is also preferred by many traditional and orthodox Christian theologians, and especially in the Christian East.

In this light, Christians should not be excessively critical of Buddhism encouraging detachment from creatures in favor of Nirvana just because Nirvana is usually described apophatically. We encourage detachment from creatures in favor of God, and often describe God apophatically.

 

[seek]

Did a little study of Buddhist thought but in no way consider myself highly learned in the subject. The comparison to the Jesus prayer would in some ways be the same. The repetition of a spiritual belief. The Eastern Mystics, I think, would engage in mantras to deliver a result…sort of like casting a spell…without the baggage of witchcraft at least for this discussion. Our Jesus prayer has a bit more to it but still similar in that what result we may want is Mercy. However there is an admission of who we are and who He is.

                           The basic premise of the Buddhist faith -much we may relate to.  1) Suffering exists. 2) It is because of desire and attachment 3) You can get rid of it. 4)  By following Buddah's teaching.( the 8 fold path).

                              First in their teaching there is good desire--just as there can be in a way good pride.  Proud that your kid is a good kid  Taking pride in you appearance and many others--just as long in some way they ultimately glorify God .
                                Where they lost me is.  There is this ultimate reality but it cannot

be explained which is in some ways similar to us–who can really fully understand God.
They don’t have anything like-what is central to our belief–Grace. And we do know a whole lot about our God. The Old Covenant and most importantly God as Jesus Christ himself. We know that we can call God Father (even Abba–Papa, Dad). And he thought so much of us that he entered history- God became man- offered himself up to bring us back to his Home if we wanted.
Finally-- It seems as though in Buddhist belief there ceases to be any sense of a relationship with a God. We kind of are absorbed into an ultimate reality. Our awareness of our selves and our awareness of Him. This destruction of self/ego is where some would say we as Christians fail. We think so highly of ourselves that we cannot fathom allowing the self to be eliminated. Of course I think it’s the opposite in two ways—They cannot imagine themselves having enough humility to be worshipping God for eternity So Buddhist thought eliminates relationship in the end. And secondly it’s not about us thinking so highly of ourselves that we cannot have our self/ ego destroyed but rather–most importantly-- HE.GOD is the ONE who thinks that much of us.

 

[rossum]

The basic premise of the Buddhist faith -much we may relate to. 1) Suffering exists. 2) It is because of desire and attachment 3) You can get rid of it. 4) By following Buddah’s teaching. (the 8 fold path).

This is an excellent summary of Buddhism.

We think so highly of ourselves that we cannot fathom allowing the self to be eliminated.

Buddhism does not eliminate the self any more than you can eliminate the water in a mirage. When you see a mirage you think that there is water there, but there is actually no water at all. When you look at yourself, you think that you see a self, but there is actually no self there at all. You cannot eliminate what was never there in the first place. What you can do is to eliminate the false perception that misled you.

rossum

 

[jimmy]

Buddhism does not eliminate the self any more than you can eliminate the water in a mirage. When you see a mirage you think that there is water there, but there is actually no water at all. When you look at yourself, you think that you see a self, but there is actually no self there at all. You cannot eliminate what was never there in the first place. What you can do is to eliminate the false perception that misled you.

rossum

I don’t understand this. How can YOU eliminate the illusion of self if you have no self. Doesn’t the fact of your existence show that you have a self?

 

[Tmaque]

This is an excellent summary of Buddhism.

Buddhism does not eliminate the self any more than you can eliminate the water in a mirage. When you see a mirage you think that there is water there, but there is actually no water at all. When you look at yourself, you think that you see a self, but there is actually no self there at all. You cannot eliminate what was never there in the first place. What you can do is to eliminate the false perception that misled you.

rossum

Well I know I AM here, “I think therefore I am”. Buddhism fails the logic test at the outset. Only Catholic Christianity passes every spiritual and logic test.

 

[rossum]

I don’t understand this. How can YOU eliminate the illusion of self if you have no self. Doesn’t the fact of your existence show that you have a self?

When I was born I weighed a few pounds and I could not operate a computer. Now I weigh rather more and I can operate a computer. What I am now is not the same as what I was when I was born. I have changed. As with Heraclitus I can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and it is not the same me.

Most religions see the world as fundamentally static with a veneer of change over the top, as with Plato’s cave. Buddhism is the opposite. It sees the world as fundamentally changing with a veneer of apparent stasis overlaid. There is no permanent unchanging self in Buddhism, there is no soul:“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 20:7
What you think is your soul isn’t.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Well I know I AM here, “I think therefore I am”. Buddhism fails the logic test at the outset. Only Catholic Christianity passes every spiritual and logic test.

You think, but what you are thinking changes from minute to minute. Even a short session of meditation, or saying the Jesus Prayer, will show you that. If what you are thinking changes then your “I am” is also changing. What “I am” was ten minutes ago is not the same as the “I am” now. The old version no longer exists and the current version will be gone in ten minutes time.

rossum

 

[Tmaque]

You think, but what you are thinking changes from minute to minute. Even a short session of meditation, or saying the Jesus Prayer, will show you that. If what you are thinking changes then your “I am” is also changing. What “I am” was ten minutes ago is not the same as the “I am” now. The old version no longer exists and the current version will be gone in ten minutes time.

rossum

What I think may change, but the fact that I do indeed think does not. I am me, always have been and always will be. Sure I change and grow but that doesn’t change my essence or my continuity of being. An oak, whether a sapling or a mighty tree is still an oak. No offense but I think Buddhism is a cop out. It allows us to disengage from the hard work of making the world a better place.

 

[scapularkid8]

It allows us to disengage from the hard work of making the world a better place.

http://asianstudies.anu.edu.au/weblog/uploads/dalai_lama1.jpg
Because I’m sure he’s totally disengaged from hardwork for justice in Tibet LOL

 

[Moscati]

Well I know I AM here, “I think therefore I am”. Buddhism fails the logic test at the outset. Only Catholic Christianity passes every spiritual and logic test.

No, no. no!! Descartes “I think therefore I am” is antithetical to Catholic Christianity. It splits the mind and the body in two, and says the mind is better. That’s Gnosticism.

 

[Moscati]

The greatest similarity, I think, is that the people who pray them believe the practice can be transforming. The most obvious difference, it seems to me, is that the first addresses Jesus and the latter do not. I do not know enough about the meaning and use of mantras in Buddhism to say much more.

While I don’t know much about the meaning and use of mantras in Buddhism, I have studied a bit about Buddhism, and I don’t think this is an entirely fair portrayal. In Buddhism, Nirvana is the “Absolute Truth” or “Ultimate Reality.” The liberated experience it, but human words cannot adequately describe it, so negative (apophatic) terms (“not this, not that”) are usually used instead.

Edward Conze has noted that when positive (cataphatic) language is used to describe Nirvana in Buddhist texts, they say that “Nirvana is permanent, stable, imperishable, immovable, ageless, deathless, unborn, and unbecome, that it is power, bliss and happiness, the secure refuge, the shelter, and the place of unassailable safety; that it is the real Truth and the supreme Reality; that it is the Good, the supreme goal and the one and only consummation of our life, the eternal, hidden and incomprehensible Peace.” (Quoted in Huston Smith & Philip Novak’s Buddhism: A Concise Introduction.) As one Theravadan scholar puts it: “Truth is not a result or an effect. It is not produced like a mystic, spiritual, mental state… TRUTH IS. NIRVANA IS.” Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh, similarly, calls Nirvana the “ground of being.” But apophatic terms are preferred, precisely because this reality cannot be comprehended.

The nearest analog for Nirvana in Christianity would be God. Apophatic language for God is also preferred by many traditional and orthodox Christian theologians, and especially in the Christian East.

In this light, Christians should not be excessively critical of Buddhism encouraging detachment from creatures in favor of Nirvana just because Nirvana is usually described apophatically. We encourage detachment from creatures in favor of God, and often describe God apophatically.

Thank you for this–it’s very interesting. I’d always envisioned nirvana as sort of a disinterested, free-floating nothingness. Apparently I have a lot to learn! I’ve been reading the Cappadocian Fathers lately, learning more about the apophatic tradition (which is very new to me), and the comparison is helpful too.

 

[rossum]

What I think may change, but the fact that I do indeed think does not.

Do you think when you are unconscious? Did you think when you were just a few cells in your mother’s womb with no brain yet formed?

I am me, always have been and always will be.

But what “me” refers to is constantly changing. 200 years ago there was no “me” at all, so at the very least your “me” has changed from non-existence to existence. Something that changes cannot be permanent but must be transient.

You need to change in order to be saved. AIUI in Christianity all humans are born with original sin and so are born unsaved. Things like baptism or whatever change them from unsaved to saved. If there is no change then there is no possibility of salvation. The saved ‘me’ is not the same as the unsaved ‘me’.

Sure I change and grow but that doesn’t change my essence or my continuity of being. An oak, whether a sapling or a mighty tree is still an oak.

An acorn can grow continuously into an oak tree, but an acorn is not an oak tree. This is one of the crucial points of Buddhism, there is no inner essence of things, just the illusion of an inner essence to things.

No offense but I think Buddhism is a cop out. It allows us to disengage from the hard work of making the world a better place.

I only wish it did. The first of the Six Perfections is charity.

rossum

 

[aspirant]

Doesn’t the fact of your existence show that you have a self?

Buddhists say that “the way we perceive ourselves and other phenomena as existing is not the way they really exist.” The Buddhist concept of anatta (“not-self,” “empty of self”) is, as I understand it, a radical claim that all creatures are composite, temporal, mutable, and contingent beings. Buddhists object to the idea that things of this world exist of themselves. This is not an idea entirely incompatible with Christian philosophical theology, because we also believe that the things of this world are composite, temporal, mutable, and contingent, that their existence (that they are) and essence (what they are) are distinct, that they are not self-existent.

A Tibetan introduction to Buddhism puts it this way:

By generating the wisdom that directly realizes emptiness, we will perceive the mode in which we and other phenomena exist: they are empty of our fantasized projections on them, most importantly the projection of inherent existence… What does it mean to say “All persons and phenomena are empty of true or inherent existence?” This means that persons (like you and me) and all other phenomena (tables, etc.) are empty of these fantasized qualities we project onto them. One of the principal deceptive qualities that we project onto persons and phenomena is that they are inherently existent, that is, that they exist without depending on causes and conditions, parts, and the consciousness which conceives them and gives them a name… This is the appearance of true or inherent existence, and our mind grasps it as real. However when we examine things analytically to discover if things exist in the independent way they superficially appear to, we find that they do not. They are empty of these fantasized projections. Still, they do exist, but they exist dependently, for they rely on causes and conditions, on the parts which compose them, and on the mind which conceives them and gives them a name.

If all people and phenomena are selfless or empty, does that mean that nothing exists? No, phenomena and people still exist. After all, I am still here typing and you are still reading! Emptiness is not the same as nihilism. Rather, people and phenomena are empty of our fantasized projections upon them. They lack what our wrong conceptions attribute to them. They do not exist in the way they appear to us at present, but they do exist. That is, they don’t exist independently, but they do dependently exist. For example, someone wearing sunglasses sees dark trees. There are no independent dark trees, but we cannot say there are no trees at all. The trees exist, they just do not exist in the way that they appear to the person with sunglasses…

The emptiness that the Buddha spoke of… concerns the mode of existence of phenomena. It is the absence of inherent existence. That is, things do not exist under their own power, from their own side, independent of all other things…

When psychologists speak of a sense of “self” they are referring to the feeling that oneself is an effecacious person, someone who is self-confident and can act in the world. Buddhists agree that such a sense of self is both realistic and necessary. However the sense of self that Buddhism says is unrealistic is that of a very solid, unchanging, independent “I.” Such a self never has and never will exist. To understand this is to realize emptiness…

In doing meditation on emptiness, we must be careful not to fall into the extreme of nihilism, thinking that no self at all exists. While an independent self does not exist, a conventional, dependent one does.

Christian philosophical theology uses different terminology, but a lot of the ideas conveyed here are-- if we take the time and make some effort to “translate” and understand-- common to both Christians and Buddhists.

[image of the Dalai Lama] Because I’m sure he’s totally disengaged from hardwork for justice in Tibet LOL

I can’t help but think, also, of Thich Nhat Hanh’s Engaged Buddhism movement.

 

[itinerant1]

When I was born I weighed a few pounds and I could not operate a computer. Now I weigh rather more and I can operate a computer. What I am now is not the same as what I was when I was born. I have changed. As with Heraclitus I can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and it is not the same me.

Throughout the myriad of changes there remains the “I”. Today “you” know that it was “you” who made the post about not stepping in the same river. If there were not something essential about you that actually persisted “fundamentally” unchanged through all the “incidental” changes, such as different ideas, memories and emotions, various physical changes, and so on, you would not and could not know who it was that made the post in question.

But you do remember, and only because it is the same “I” that experiences the various memories, etc.

 

[scapularkid8]

Politely,

This thread is to compare and contrast mantras and the Jesus Prayer, not the traditions they come from

 

[itinerant1]

Buddhists say that “the way we perceive ourselves and other phenomena as existing is not the way they really exist.” The Buddhist concept of anatta (“not-self,” “empty of self”) is, as I understand it, a radical claim that all creatures are composite, temporal, mutable, and contingent beings. Buddhists object to the idea that things of this world exist of themselves. This is not an idea entirely incompatible with Christian philosophical theology, because we also believe that the things of this world are composite, temporal, mutable, and contingent, that their existence (that they are) and essence (what they are) are distinct, that they are not self-existent.

The fact that contingent beings have an essence or substantial form, that which persists through all changes save corruption, is a radically different conception of reality than the one that says all is change and illusory.

 

[itinerant1]

Politely,

This thread is to compare and contrast mantras and the Jesus Prayer, not the traditions they come from

Ooops! Thank you for the reminder.