I wouldn’t think so. I’d discuss my newfound fascination with a Priest. Would it not cause a focus on the teachings of Buddha? Seems to me, you can not serve two Masters.I’ve heard that in Buddhism your allowed to be a Buddhist and practise another religion.I guess that from the perspective of Buddhism it’s okay to be practising both Buddhism and another religion.However if the person doing this was from a religion such as a branch of Christianity like Catholicism would it be okay (from the Catholic perpective in this case) to be doing that?.
Thank you very much so for your time.
This is very true. You must be careful. There are several serious conflicts. Buddha saw ending existence entirely (becoming one with the great void, nirvana, however you wish to say it) to be more desirable than serving God forever in an idyllic heaven, regardless of the splendor and joy that might be found there. However, there is MUCH to Buddhist philosophy which is in line with Catholic teaching. As an example, his teachings on morality were highly developed and mirror in many ways Aquinas’s treatment of the same subject. I would recommend getting with a priest or spiritual director if you are planning to explore Buddhism alongside Catholicism.Buddhism, strictly speaking, is not a religion. It is really more of a philosophy on how to live life. That being said, there are several key Buddhist tenets that do conflict directly with Christianity in general.
I’m grossly oversimplifying here, but one of the goals of Buddhism is to reach a state of enlightenment in a manner that does not involve God.
Second, you pass through this world as many times as it takes until you reach this purpose.
Both of those ideas run counter to being subject to God. You are essentially relying on yourself for everything.
It’s is very true that it is clearly in contrast with the understanding that many Christians have about the life of Jesus as it relates to desire and suffering. That is not necessarily the correct understanding of the life of Jesus, however. If you delve into the teachings of Jesus from the perspective of eastern thought, you see a totally different Jesus without changing a word He said.This is clearly in contrast with the Christian message that desires are okay and suffering is necessary for holiness.
No, it would not be permissible from a Catholic perspective. Jesus said very clearly that you can not serve two masters. What aspects of Buddhism attract you?I’ve heard that in Buddhism your allowed to be a Buddhist and practise another religion.I guess that from the perspective of Buddhism it’s okay to be practising both Buddhism and another religion.However if the person doing this was from a religion such as a branch of Christianity like Catholicism would it be okay (from the Catholic perpective in this case) to be doing that?.
Thank you very much so for your time.
Jesus was a 1st century Palestinian Jew and must be understood from that perspective. He was not an eastern guru or teacher of any kind. I think N.T. Wright has written on this idea before. I’d recommend giving his extensive research a look if you are interested in the historical Jesus and the background to his life.It’s is very true that it is clearly in contrast with the understanding that many Christians have about the life of Jesus as it relates to desire and suffering. That is not necessarily the correct understanding of the life of Jesus, however. If you delve into the teachings of Jesus from the perspective of eastern thought, you see a totally different Jesus without changing a word He said.
Your friend
Sufjon
NoHowever if the person doing this was from a religion such as a branch of Christianity like Catholicism would it be okay (from the Catholic perpective in this case) to be doing that?.
I am aware that is what you believe. I am aware of the cultural influences that created the context from which Jesus would later be viewed by Christians. What I am saying is that a person from some Eastern religions would see nothing new in anything Jesus said or did. I understand that Christians think it is something new, but I have yet to see anything new in any of it. That doesn’t mean it’s bad or wrong. My understanding of Jesus is simply different than yours.Jesus was a 1st century Palestinian Jew and must be understood from that perspective. He was not an eastern guru or teacher of any kind. I think N.T. Wright has written on this idea before. I’d recommend giving his extensive research a look if you are interested in the historical Jesus and the background to his life.
It also should be remembered that the Jews of that time (just like the Jews of today) were exposed to many religious and spiritual traditions, including Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek, and, undoubtedly, Indian: Jain and Buddhist monks were well-known in the Hellenistic world. Jews have been living in India (and traveling to and fro) since around the time of Jesus. The magi may have been Persian astrologers, or they could have been (as some suggest) Hindu sages (and in Hinduism, astrology is considered a sacred science).I am aware that is what you believe. I am aware of the cultural influences that created the context from which Jesus would later be viewed by Christians. What I am saying is that a person from some Eastern religions would see nothing new in anything Jesus said or did. I understand that Christians think it is something new, but I have yet to see anything new in any of it. That doesn’t mean it’s bad or wrong. My understanding of Jesus is simply different than yours.
Your friend
Sufjon
It is not a matter of what I believe and it isn’t a matter of simple difference in opinion. It is about reconstructing the likely context in which Jesus lived and taught. When this is done, Jesus is not an eastern teacher or guru. That would be forcing an alien context on Him without justification.I am aware that is what you believe. I am aware of the cultural influences that created the context from which Jesus would later be viewed by Christians. What I am saying is that a person from some Eastern religions would see nothing new in anything Jesus said or did. I understand that Christians think it is something new, but I have yet to see anything new in any of it. That doesn’t mean it’s bad or wrong. My understanding of Jesus is simply different than yours.
Your friend
Sufjon
The Jews of 1st century Palestine, as well as before, were quite zealous in guarding the purity of their religion. Unless you can offer some evidence that the Judaism of the day was actually influenced and changed by foreign sources, there is no basis for claiming that cultural contact with outsiders could lead to Jesus teaching and preaching in an essentially non-Jewish context.It also should be remembered that the Jews of that time (just like the Jews of today) were exposed to many religious and spiritual traditions, including Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek, and, undoubtedly, Indian: Jain and Buddhist monks were well-known in the Hellenistic world. Jews have been living in India (and traveling to and fro) since around the time of Jesus. The magi may have been Persian astrologers, or they could have been (as some suggest) Hindu sages (and in Hinduism, astrology is considered a sacred science).
Hi again SedesDomi: Everything you have said here is very true.It also should be remembered that the Jews of that time (just like the Jews of today) were exposed to many religious and spiritual traditions, including Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek, and, undoubtedly, Indian: Jain and Buddhist monks were well-known in the Hellenistic world. Jews have been living in India (and traveling to and fro) since around the time of Jesus. The magi may have been Persian astrologers, or they could have been (as some suggest) Hindu sages (and in Hinduism, astrology is considered a sacred science).
Hi ChristisTheWay: God has visited humanity many times. This is not your belief, but as you said, God is not a matter of opinion, nor are His manifestations to one group of people more or less valid than His manifestations to other people. People who think their experience of God is in some way more special than another have probably missed seeing God altogether and have unwittingly seen only a reflection of their own psyche. You are correct that He understood the social influences of the people He was among in Palestine, however, the message is the same.It is not a matter of what I believe and it isn’t a matter of simple difference in opinion. It is about reconstructing the likely context in which Jesus lived and taught. When this is done, Jesus is not an eastern teacher or guru. That would be forcing an alien context on Him without justification.
You’re assuming that there is a radical, absolute separation between what is Jewish and what is non-Jewish, as if to practice something from one is to totally reject something from another. The Genesis narratives show clear influence from Mesopotamia; some of the Proverbs show Egyptian origins. The Hebrew language itself is part of the broader Afro-Asiatic linguistic family. Jewish legend has some of Abraham’s nine sons going to India and founding religions there. All this points to the idea that Judaism is an evolving tradition. Zealous commitment is of course important, but zealousness does not equate to a radical rejection of outside ideas.The Jews of 1st century Palestine, as well as before, were quite zealous in guarding the purity of their religion. Unless you can offer some evidence that the Judaism of the day was actually influenced and changed by foreign sources, there is no basis for claiming that cultural contact with outsiders could lead to Jesus teaching and preaching in an essentially non-Jewish context.