Why persons may become Buddhists

[Rhodius2004]

I have a good friend now but she is like so many people of older years who no longer can recognise the Christian Church since contemporary Christian music took it over. The noise in these gatherings is absolutely hair raisingly phenomenal and no different from rock concerts that go on in the world. Ladies are offended by writhing women who address Jesus in the manner of a boyfriend or worse still a lover and men sing songs that would be more fitting to a football match than worship. I know that tongues are no longer interpreted at such meetings because they are edited for televisual consumption and shown in a dreadful offering on Sunday nights called "Songs of Praise ".People vie to be featured in it.
Is it any wonder that in such an atmosphere people who do not like loud music seek places that are silent as an alternative.?

Buddhism has a higher pedigree than cheap raucous rock music and scientifically trains one to calm one’s mind before beginning the process of meditation. There is no place in Buddhism for ceaseless noise whether musical or otherwise .

One reason why even people who had a regular Anglican background can be interested in Buddhism without going against what Jesus said :“I am the Way , the Truth and the Life:no man cometh unto the Father except by me.” These folk have been put off by the horribly musical face of charismanic so-called Christianity.

 

[Mystophilus]

Rhodius2004:

Buddhism has a higher pedigree than cheap raucous rock music and scientifically trains one to calm one’s mind before beginning the process of meditation. There is no place in Buddhism for ceaseless noise whether musical or otherwise .

Of course, that depends entirely upon which version of Buddhism you choose. Tantra involves lots of loud noise, various iterations of Mahayana likewise, and Chan can involve anything at all: from subwoofers to flugelhorns. Theravada tends to be somewhat quieter, but the Middle Road disdains ascetic quietude.

If you want to be a hermit, though, you can pretty much pick any faith you like (except maybe Scientology).

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

Why people become Buddhists (as opposed to Taoists) in my observation through all my martial arts training, is that Buddhism is a well advertised empircal religion which provides short-term pragmatic life problem advice and has been generally publicised in the United States through the martial arts. A lot of the general public is familiar with kung fu and the Shaolin Temple and equally familar with the fighting Buddhist monks. Buddhism teaches self-reliance and a practical hands-on view towards life. Though Taoism does just about the same thing, Taoist kung fu and martial arts was not widely advertised through T.V. and the movies.

Most people only see the superficial offerings of Buddhism, the yoga like meditation, the martial arts, the wise-man sayings, peaceful demeanor, and even Father Thomas Merton was taken in by these overt trappings.

Yet Buddhism is almost pure pantheism coupled with reincarnation; and these shortcomings do not become apparent to the new practitioner until later in their Buddhist development.

 

[CindyLynn]

I can’t imagine that someone would convert to Buddhism because they didn’t like the contemporary Christian music in their church.

Christianity has nothing to do with contemporary Christian music, so why not change the church one goes to? There are a lot of churches that don’t play contemporary music during the worship service (Catholicism). It makes no sense to ditch the entire religion for something that is not even part of the faith.

You can’t follow Buddhism and Jesus Christ. Otherwise you’ve drifted into a vague pantheism that teaches concepts in conflict with Christianity.

 

[proud2Bpapist]

I agree Cindy. Liturgical style is something that varies from place to place; it’s not that hard to find alternatives. If you don’t like charismatic “praise and worship”, you could go be a high church anglican without leaving Christianity altogether.

You are right that Buddhism is something entirely seperate from the teachings of Christ. Sure, there are some common ideas, like self-denial and being kind to others. Buddhism’s entire concept of reality and eternal life, however, completely deviates from Christian teachings. The Buddhist ideal of an erternity of “nirvana”, complete absorbtion with no individuality, is not like the heaven where we are one in Christ, but distinct persons. Also, Buddhists consider physical suffering something to be avoided, not an opportunity for spiritual growth. There was an excellent cover article about this in a recent issues of This Rock , but unfortunately that issue is not on the website yet.

It sounds like the person in question was attracted to Buddhism anyway, and just used her parish’s lousy music as an excuse to leave.

One of my favorite college professor last year, a brilliant man who has been a great source of academic encouragement, is unfortunately an ex-Catholic-now-Buddhist. He seems to be particularly devoted to the ancient writings of Buddhist teachers and their tenetof kindness and doing no harm to others. He won’t even kill the bugs that invade his house!

He also has a general liberal/Democrat/anti-war mindset, a product of his youth I am sure. There were probably many factors, both intellectual disillusion and personal experiences, that led to his abandonment of the Catholic faith. He probably ran across Buddhism and thought it sounded cool.

 

[WolfStar777]

Rhodius2004:

I have a good friend now but she is like so many people of older years who no longer can recognise the Christian Church since contemporary Christian music took it over. The noise in these gatherings is absolutely hair raisingly phenomenal and no different from rock concerts that go on in the world. Ladies are offended by writhing women who address Jesus in the manner of a boyfriend or worse still a lover and men sing songs that would be more fitting to a football match than worship. I know that tongues are no longer interpreted at such meetings because they are edited for televisual consumption and shown in a dreadful offering on Sunday nights called "Songs of Praise ".People vie to be featured in it.
Is it any wonder that in such an atmosphere people who do not like loud music seek places that are silent as an alternative.?

What’s so cheap about rock music? I’ll have you know that thanx to groups like Black Sabbath, Megadeth, Judas Priest and Twisted Sister (yes, you read that right. I am talking about the often villified “secular” bands), I have a stronger faith in the Almighty. However, I can relate to your loathing of “contemporary Christian music”- I can’t stand the stuff because it’s soulless and cheeeeeeeeeesy drivel- Michael Bolton and Enya are ALMOST safe for human auditory consumption by comparison. But if you’re as offended as you purport yourself to be by those no-talent hacks, then you are in desparate need of being genuinely offended.

 

[Egg4christ]

Come on. Are you really saying “God is in this kind of music but not this kind”?
Is God restricted to certain fonts as well? Mabey Comic sans is just too ridiculous to be used by Christ. He only likes Arial or Times New Roman. Besides, they look more proffessional…

I wonder what fonts the buhddists use?
You think maybe God likes their font?

I’m sorry for the sarcasm, but i really believe this is the best way to get my point across. Who cares if the buhddists have better music. That doesn’t make them right.
And trust me, if loud music really bothers you or your elderly friends that much, there is a church somewhere that has softer music. In the end, the type and style of music is right up there with the fonts they use to display their bullitin

 

[Nicodemus414]

I wade in to the waters of these threads rarely, but this one concerns me. In the three posts (as of my writing) so far in this thread three very different and incongruous views of Buddhism have been shared. I suspect they are the views of people who know of Buddhism, or perhaps even know Buddhists, but they don’t seem to be the views of practitioners of Buddhism. That is perfectly understandable on a Catholic message board, so let me try and give some perspective from a practitioners view.

The words Buddhist and Buddhism have the same descriptive limitations as the words Christian and Christianity; they simply don’t convey any actual details about the beliefs of someone who identifies with the title. Christianity covers many main branches (catholic, protestant, orthodox, and other faded branches) and many distinctive sub-branches. A person from one major branch will likely behave and hold beliefs very different from someone from another major branch; so too in Buddhism.

The Theravada branch of Buddhism is very much like the Catholic/Orthodox branches of Christianity. It is rigidly structured, has a strong priesthood, holds specific written tenets of faith, etc. A Theravada adherent has a very large pantheon of deity and sub-deity figures to observe and respect, from the great Buddhas (the gods if you will) down to the arhants (saints) and respected teachers (apologists and monks). Theravada has a clear definition of a heaven-like place and a hell-like alternative.

The Mahayana branch of Buddhism is similar to the protestant Christian movement in its origins and intent, but ideologically it is very different. The Mahayana branch covers a very broad range of views and positions. For example the Jodo-Shinshu and similar Amida Buddha/Pure Land schools are essentially deist with trappings of monotheism; whereas Chan (or Zen as it is called in Japan and the west) is nearly anti-theistic and focuses on internal personal change through silent sitting meditation and small focused discussions of transmitted wisdom sayings and questions.

On a total side note, if you have ever heard of a Chan/Zen sangha including Flugelhorns or subwoofers in any part of the sesshin (worship service) you are talking about an exception akin to the holy-rollers of Pentecostal Protestantism…VERY “out there” and NOT a part of mainstream or even typical alternative Chan/Zen sesshin. Typical Chan/Zen sesshin revolves around silent sitting meditation (zazen) and/or reflection on paradoxical questions concerning perception and reality (Koan). Noise and commotion are expressly NOT a part of Chan/Zen sesshin.

Personally, I am an adherent of Sanbo-Kyodan synthesis line of Zen Buddhism. Dharma transmission to the west largely came from Japanese lines of Rinzai and Soto Zen synthesized together by Harada Roshi and his student and Dharma heir Yasutani Roshi and then down through their Dharma heirs such as Kaplau Roshi, Maezumi Roshi (esp. Glassman Roshi and Beck Roshi) and Yamada Roshi (esp. Aitken Roshi).

The Sanbo-Kyoden school of Zen Buddhism is one of the smallest and most iconoclastic in Japan, and yet it represents the line of Dharma transmission that almost all the active Zen communities in west are descended from.

I admit I am concerned with the thinking that one can only become a Buddhist because of intellectual disappointments or because it “sounded cool”, but perhaps this isn’t the place for inclusive discourse.

Regardless, my point is that it is fruitless to paint a single person’s spiritual and emotional decisions with the broad brush of “Buddhist”. A deeper understanding of the specific school and tenants of Buddhism they are investigating will provide you with a deeper understanding of the void they currently see in their spiritual and emotional life.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

Nicodemus414:

I wade in to the waters of these threads rarely, but this one concerns me. In the three posts (as of my writing) so far in this thread three very different and incongruous views of Buddhism have been shared. I suspect they are the views of people who know of Buddhism, or perhaps even know Buddhists, but they don’t seem to be the views of practitioners of Buddhism. That is perfectly understandable on a Catholic message board, so let me try and give some perspective from a practitioners view.

The words Buddhist and Buddhism have the same descriptive limitations as the words Christian and Christianity; they simply don’t convey any actual details about the beliefs of someone who identifies with the title. Christianity covers many main branches (catholic, protestant, orthodox, and other faded branches) and many distinctive sub-branches. A person from one major branch will likely behave and hold beliefs very different from someone from another major branch; so too in Buddhism.

The Theravada branch of Buddhism is very much like the Catholic/Orthodox branches of Christianity. It is rigidly structured, has a strong priesthood, holds specific written tenets of faith, etc. A Theravada adherent has a very large pantheon of deity and sub-deity figures to observe and respect, from the great Buddhas (the gods if you will) down to the arhants (saints) and respected teachers (apologists and monks). Theravada has a clear definition of a heaven-like place and a hell-like alternative.

The Mahayana branch of Buddhism is similar to the protestant Christian movement in its origins and intent, but ideologically it is very different. The Mahayana branch covers a very broad range of views and positions. For example the Jodo-Shinshu and similar Amida Buddha/Pure Land schools are essentially deist with trappings of monotheism; whereas Chan (or Zen as it is called in Japan and the west) is nearly anti-theistic and focuses on internal personal change through silent sitting meditation and small focused discussions of transmitted wisdom sayings and questions.

On a total side note, if you have ever heard of a Chan/Zen sangha including Flugelhorns or subwoofers in any part of the sesshin (worship service) you are talking about an exception akin to the holy-rollers of Pentecostal Protestantism…VERY “out there” and NOT a part of mainstream or even typical alternative Chan/Zen sesshin. Typical Chan/Zen sesshin revolves around silent sitting meditation (zazen) and/or reflection on paradoxical questions concerning perception and reality (Koan). Noise and commotion are expressly NOT a part of Chan/Zen sesshin.

Personally, I am an adherent of Sanbo-Kyodan synthesis line of Zen Buddhism. Dharma transmission to the west largely came from Japanese lines of Rinzai and Soto Zen synthesized together by Harada Roshi and his student and Dharma heir Yasutani Roshi and then down through their Dharma heirs such as Kaplau Roshi, Maezumi Roshi (esp. Glassman Roshi and Beck Roshi) and Yamada Roshi (esp. Aitken Roshi).

The Sanbo-Kyoden school of Zen Buddhism is one of the smallest and most iconoclastic in Japan, and yet it represents the line of Dharma transmission that almost all the active Zen communities in west are descended from.

I admit I am concerned with the thinking that one can only become a Buddhist because of intellectual disappointments or because it “sounded cool”, but perhaps this isn’t the place for inclusive discourse.

Regardless, my point is that it is fruitless to paint a single person’s spiritual and emotional decisions with the broad brush of “Buddhist”. A deeper understanding of the specific school and tenants of Buddhism they are investigating will provide you with a deeper understanding of the void they currently see in their spiritual and emotional life.

O.K., after all that, could you answer the question “Why persons may become Buddhists”? Thank you.

 

[Evanescence]

I have a boy in my street who was originally Catholic but wants to become buddhists because he thinks they are “cool”

Evanescence

 

[Ahimsa]

Evanescence:

I have a boy in my street who was originally Catholic but wants to become buddhists because he thinks they are “cool”

Evanescence

That’s one of the meanings of Nirvana: “cool”.

 

[puzzleannie]

Rhodius2004:

I have a good friend now but she is like so many people of older years who no longer can recognise the Christian Church since contemporary Christian music took it over. The noise in these gatherings is absolutely hair raisingly phenomenal and no different from rock concerts that go on in the world. .

whoa, that is quite a generalization. I can’t speak for other Christian denominations, including Anglican which you reference, but for every Catholic Church that uses some contemporary music and/or instruments at some Masses, there is another parish that relies on traditional music, and many especially for daily Mass that have no music, or what there is a capella. Most mainline Protestant Churches seem to advertise a traditional service, a contemporary service, and perhaps youth or children’s services so it would seem they try to accommodate many different worship styles and preferences.

perhaps OP has ventured onto a contemporary youth service at a mega-church and has been turned off, just as many Catholics would be at a Life Teen Mass.

if someone’s faith depends on peripherals like the music, and the person was able to reject Jesus Christ for the privilege of some peace and quiet, then there was no real faith to begin with. The Catholic finds this in the adoration chapel in the silent presence of Jesus Christ and has no need to look elsewhere.

Buddhism is the complete antithesis of Christianity and cannot be reconciled with true religion and worship of the one true God.

for a complete and excellent explanation and apologetics resource check out the last issue of This Rock, don’t know if it is available on homepage yet.

 

[MEP]

Bobby A. Greene:

O.K., after all that, could you answer the question “Why persons may become Buddhists”? Thank you.

There are as many different answers to that question as there are Buddhists (or at least as there are varieties of Buddhism). For those who think Buddhism is necessarily pantheistic, I strongly suggest reading some Thomas Merton or even D.T. Suzuki. I for one, think that Zen Buddhism is less of a religion and more of an existentialist philosophy.

The church talks a lot about those who do not have the opportunity in their lives to hear to Gospel, and sometimes we talk about the baptism of desire – that those who pursue truth in their lives, but through no fault of their own have never heard the gospel message of Christ can still be saved. In my opinion, Chan/Zen/Son Buddhism is a sign of the universal truths that all human beings are capable of understanding when they truly seek to find and serve the truth of existence. It is an example of how far people can go on their own without the aid of divine revelation or scripture, and I would personally wager that many of the devout practitioners of Zen-style Buddhism are deserving of that “baptism of desire”.

Certainly the ones I’ve met have all been exemplary people.

There is some debate about this, but history would seem to indicate that Sidhartha Gottama (spelling? it’s different every time I see it) did not actually advocate any kind of deification in his teachings, nor did he expressly forbid it. He was focused entirely on the pragmatic issues of living life and he left the theological issues to someone else to figure out (though some of Buddhism could be considered a direct reaction to the Hinduism that the Buddha was raised in, and that he chose to deny). It’s only after 2600 years of social evolution and cultural blending that Buddhism has become the kaleidoscope of varying beliefs, philosophies and faith systems that it is today. The use of Hindu gods in some Buddhist sects is especially puzzling to me since Gottama abandoned his Hindu beliefs and I don’t think he ever referenced those deities in his teachings after establishing his Middle Way (I could be mistaken though).

 

[CindyLynn]

I can’t imagine that today there is someone who doesn’t know about Jesus Christ or hasn’t at least heard of Him. What we actually have is people choosing not to follow Him, which they have the free will to do, of course. But God has always promised that those who honestly seek Him will find Him and He’ll lead them in the right direction.

That being said, Buddhism may be a fine religion, with wonderful people practicing it, but in reference to the original post, one cannot be both Christian and Buddhist. Two contradictory positions cannot be held simultaneously. It concerns me to hear some, not necessarily anyone here, promoting the idea that one can believe in two opposite faith systems. This is not like choosing to practice piano and guitar. Christianity says all other faiths are false. So Christianity is right, is wrong, or all faiths are false, but Christianity *and * something else cannot both be “true.” So if you actually believe in Christianity as the “Truth” and not just as a social organization, you must realize that you cannot be a member of another faith simultaneously.

There are great aspects of many faiths and cultures, certainly. But part of the creeping New Age/Atheistic/Neo-Pagan movement is to minimize the differences between other faiths and Christianity, smearing them all into a happy, skippy, God is my Best Friend Who Just Wants Me to Be Happy And Self-Actualize faith that leads in the opposite direction of salvation.

 

[reen12]

See, if we take an either/or position, we end up with a
given result. That is, a thing cannot be, and not be, at
the same time. No problem, logically.

If we maintain that no one faith has the entire truth, we
can negotiate both/and.

The reason Buddhism falls into the either/or rather than
both/and, is because it denies the absolute foundation
of Christianity…
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty…and in His
Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.

Whereas Catholicism and Lutheranism divide over
issues within Christianity.

Once the position is taken: Within Christianity, each
of the denominations sees a truth that the others do
not, both/and can come online. Together, they lead
us to God. Together, they constitue “the true Church”,
when the errors in each are corrected by the others.

reen12

 

[MEP]

reen12:

The reason Buddhism falls into the either/or rather than
both/and, is because it denies the absolute foundation
of Christianity…
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty…and in His
Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.

That’s simply not true. I don’t know where people are getting this notion that Buddhism is a pantheistic religion. That there are sects of Buddhism that worship the Buddha as a deity, or include the worship of certain other deities is true. But Buddhism as it was founded (and as it practiced in many Chan/Zen schools) is decidely not religious. It doesn’t say anything about the absolute foundation of Christianity one way or the other. It is focused entirely on this life, existentialism, and for the most part completely ignores metaphysics.

Those Buddhists of Chan/Zen sects who do have religious beliefs, have those beliefs in addition to their Buddhist philosophy, not because of it. Most of them are Taoists or a hybrid of Taoism and Shinto. And those sects of Buddhism that do include religious elements are as similar to what the Buddha taught as Mornonism is to Catholicism. Whether you call those people truly Buddhist is a matter of interpretation.

 

[reen12]

Dear MEP,

quote: MEP

Originally Posted by reen12

The reason Buddhism falls into the either/or rather than
both/and, is because it denies the absolute foundation
of Christianity…
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty…and in His
Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord.

That’s simply not true. I don’t know where people are getting this notion that Buddhism is a pantheistic religion.

First off, I said nothing about pantheism, which would
constitute a wholly different topic.

Buddhism, whether it’s considered a religion or a

philosophy, has a worldview:

-what is the nature of being human

-what is the end of human life [possible reincarnation]

-what is to be striven for [nibbana, “extincition of desires”]

-what is the right path [The Eightfold Path]

-what is the penalty attached to violating the

Eightfold Path [karma]

If a person sits in meditation, to calm the mind, that’s

one thing.

If they are striving to “realize” that the ebb and flow of

experience points to the true “nature” of a human being,

then that is a whole other reality, in direct conflict with the

Christian worldview.

thebigview.com/buddhism/

If there is any interest, click the Read On option.

Best,
reen12

 

[MEP]

reen12:

-what is the nature of being human

Life is suffering. However, it is important to look at what is really meant when the Buddhists say “life is suffering” (samsarra). The summary presented on the website you linked to really glosses over what could/should be covered in several volumes. If you want a cliff notes version of what samsarra really is, it’s basically that nothing is truly suffering except that thinking about it makes it so. You will find similar ideas in Christianity, particularly when Christ teaches us that to take offense is a sin.

That the origin of suffering is attachment to transient things is absolutely identical to Christian teaching (read Kierkegaard’s A Sickness Unto Death for a great summary of Christian doctrine on this subject (try to ignore he’s Lutheran, the book is really spot on)).

-what is the end of human life [possible reincarnation]

Not all Buddhists state what the end of life is. Reincarnation is the most common belief but not the only. That they misunderstand the afterlife is not indicative of a philosophical opposition to Christianity so much as an ignorance of it. They simply do not know there is a heaven because no one has told them. Yes, they’ve all heard of Christianity, but hardly any of them really understand what it is or what we believe (sort of like how this web page you linked to doesn’t really know jack about Buddhism). The Buddhist desire to attain enlightenment, an understanding of reality (among other things) would certainly lead them to believe in heaven/hell if the subject matter were presented to them in a way that they could understand.

-what is to be striven for [nibbana, “extincition of desires”]

Nirvana, as it often called is a state of mind where one escapes the suffering of samasarra by releasing their attachments to transitory things. Again, totally Christian except that they do not include the acceptance of Jesus Christ in the equation (and therefore Nirvana is never a permanent state for them, but only attained in short spurts – we believe that Christ is necessary to maintain such a state of mind).

-what is the right path [The Eightfold Path]

The Eightfold path is nearly identical to moral laws of Christianity. Cultural differences in different parts of Asia have created some moral laws we wouldn’t believe in, but actual devout Buddhists tend to see the errors in those laws as much as we do. It’s basically their ten commandments and nothing in it in opposition to what we believe.

-what is the penalty attached to violating the Eightfold Path [karma]

We call karma “temporal punishment”. Same thing. Buddhists tend not to have a notion of eternal punishment (which is what we have confession for), but that’s because they have not found the truth of the Gospel.

If a person sits in meditation, to calm the mind, that’s
one thing. If they are striving to “realize” that the ebb and flow of
experience points to the true “nature” of a human being,
then that is a whole other reality, in direct conflict with the
Christian worldview.

Buddhism is not Christianity, that’s true. I am Catholic and not Buddhist and I don’t believe in any Buddhist “religion”. But to say that Buddhism is in direct conflict with Christianity is to grossly misunderstand Buddhism, Christianity or both. Most Westerners haven’t the slightest clue what Buddhism is really all about and the Buddhism of the Western mind is really not even remotely similar to the Buddhism of the Eastern mind. Understanding it requires more than what any web page has to offer. You have to understand the differences in language (this is important because it alters the way that everything (even secular subjects) are taught in Asia). You have to understand the history of India, Hinduism and the spread of Buddhism beyond it’s source. You have to understand Taoism and Confucianism to really understand Chan/Zen Buddhism (the Buddhism written about at length by the monk, Thomas Merton). And you have to realize that hardly any written text in Chinese history is meant to be taken literally. The use of symbolism and metaphor in their cultural heritage is so thick as to make it absolutely befuddling, even to their own people (which explains why there are so many thousands of different forms of Buddhism, Taoism and everything else there).

 

[MEP]

Westerners are at a complete disadvantage when trying to decipher this stuff because our cultural heritage really is of a completely different world than theirs. It’s not just a language barrier. We think differently. I studied Eastern religions, philosophy and language for years and I only scratched the surface.

It works both ways though. You say that they’ve all surely had the chance to hear the Gospel and so “baptism of desire” likely doesn’t apply to them becaus they’ve rejected it. You have no idea how baffling Christianity is to most Asians. They don’t reject it. They simply don’t understand what we are saying most of the time. Trinitarian dogma, transubstantiation and the eucharist are all a mystery to them.

I knew a Buddhist married to a Catholic who was horrified by the Eucharist. He likened it to cannibalism until his wife’s priest explained it to him (which took several hours from what I hear). The notion of people filing up to the alter to EAT GOD just left him dumbstruck. I think he ended up converting, but it really took years and years of effort for him to just understand the basics of the religion that most of us grew up with. I don’t think you appreciate just how different the mindset really is.

 

[reen12]

Hi, MEP,

quote: MEP

Most Westerners haven’t the slightest clue what Buddhism is really all about and the Buddhism of the Western mind is really not even remotely similar to the Buddhism of the Eastern mind

.

To say that a website is not sufficient- for one has to
understand the culture, history etc, - begs the
question of what is taught - what is the basic doctrine.

I could point to a website that would convey the* basics*
of Christian belief- without going* near* French culture,
Italian history, Eastern Rite practices, or the history
of the Church, at various moments in time.

I will let the matter rest, by inviting readers of the
thread to check the link I provided, or to put
“Buddhism” in the Google search engine.

www.google.com

In evangeling any culture, it is of great help to understand their
history and language and literatrue - but it is* critical*,
in terms of successful evangelization, to understand “where they’re coming from” …in terms of their own basic beliefs.

If I thought there was no value in Buddhism, I wouldn’t
have spent 30 studying same.:tiphat:

quote: MEP

But to say that Buddhism is in direct conflict with Christianity is to grossly misunderstand Buddhism, Christianity or both.

An interesting assessment.

Thank you for giving us the benefit of your views.

Best,
reen12