Would there be any concerns if (from the Catholic perspective) if a Catholic were to practise two religions such as Catholicism and Buddhism?

[Sufjon]

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…

I didn’t know any of that, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks SedesDomi!

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

As for the guru thing, Jesus was God. He was also a teacher, was he not? Guru means teacher, or guide. Aside from being God in human form, was He not these things? By the way, technically, Palestine is oriental rather than occidental, so being a teacher from the orient, was Jesus not an eastern guru?

I am using “guru” in the sense of Hinduism. I think that Jesus Christ would be more properly called a rabbi.

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.

I don’t dispute similarities. However, there is no evidence that Jesus was anything like a Hindu guru or any other Indian religionist. From a historical perspective, Jesus must be understood in the sense of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. This is, as far as I know, a relatively uncontroversial claim amongst scholarly circles. Anything otherwise is pure speculation and is built upon religious convictions.

1st century Palestinian Judaism was not Hinduism or any other Indian religion. Despite any similarities and cultural contacts in the past, the Judaism of the day and the Indian religions of the day were distinct. To try to fit a religious figure from one culture into another is not doing that religious figure justice.

 

[Sufjon]

I am using “guru” in the sense of Hinduism. I think that Jesus Christ would be more properly called a rabbi.

I don’t dispute similarities. However, there is no evidence that Jesus was anything like a Hindu guru or any other Indian religionist. From a historical perspective, Jesus must be understood in the sense of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. This is, as far as I know, a relatively uncontroversial claim amongst scholarly circles. Anything otherwise is pure speculation and is built upon religious convictions.

1st century Palestinian Judaism was not Hinduism or any other Indian religion. Despite any similarities and cultural contacts in the past, the Judaism of the day and the Indian religions of the day were distinct. To try to fit a religious figure from one culture into another is not doing that religious figure justice.

Hi ChristIsTheWay

Yes, you’re right - He would have been called a rabbi, but that is also pretty much what a guru is. He was also called God in human form, but that is what an Avatar is. Both ideas existed in Hinduism long before there was a Christianity.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Hi ChristIsTheWay

Yes, you’re right - He would have been called a rabbi, but that is also pretty much what a guru is. He was also called God in human form, but that is what an Avatar is. Both ideas existed in Hinduism long before there was a Christianity.

Your friend
Sufjon

It was my understanding that an Avatar, the descent of a god to Earth, is more compatible with Docetism. The Docetic Jesus was a later invention of groups like the Gnostics and is not the Jesus of the Gospels. People will frequently cite similarities between Christianity and other religions but upon further examination such similarities prove to be superficial.

The idea of god-men is not unheard of in the ancient world. The Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, etc, had their own. They only possess a marginal similarity to Jesus and to try and force these alien cultural contexts on Jesus and the Jews of His day is to make a serious error that will render inaccurate understandings of His life and His teachings.

 

[SedesDomi]

I don’t dispute similarities. However, there is no evidence that Jesus was anything like a Hindu guru or any other Indian religionist. From a historical perspective, Jesus must be understood in the sense of 1st century Palestinian Judaism. This is, as far as I know, a relatively uncontroversial claim amongst scholarly circles. Anything otherwise is pure speculation and is built upon religious convictions.

It’s probably a stretch to say that Jesus was totally and absolutely unlike an Indian “Guru,” at least because of the fact that – even without assuming a concrete connection between Jesus and India – spiritual teachers from many different cultures show broad similarities, simply because the physics of spirituality is cross-cultural. For instance, devotion to the Guru as the way to union with God is an essential part of the practice of Guru Yoga. To note the similarities between Guru Yoga, on the one hand, and the Christ’s confession to His disciples that only through Him can they come to the Father, need not take away anything from either Christ or any particular Guru. Christ need not have gone to India, nor India come to Israel, but the spiritual process, I would suggest, is universal, and one would not be surprised to see similar concepts arise in different cultural contexts.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

It’s probably a stretch to say that Jesus was totally and absolutely unlike an Indian “Guru,” at least because of the fact that – even without assuming a concrete connection between Jesus and India – spiritual teachers from many different cultures show broad similarities, simply because the physics of spirituality is cross-cultural. For instance, devotion to the Guru as the way to union with God is an essential part of the practice of Guru Yoga. To note the similarities between Guru Yoga, on the one hand, and the Christ’s confession to His disciples that only through Him can they come to the Father, need not take away anything from either Christ or any particular Guru. Christ need not have gone to India, nor India come to Israel, but the spiritual process, I would suggest, is universal, and one would not be surprised to see similar concepts arise in different cultural contexts.

There are similarities between a guru and a rabbi. I can grant that. That isn’t saying much. There are similarities between the religious teachers of all religions. That is very broad. All similarities are, as you say, a result of certain universals of human religious practice. That doesn’t make everything relative. It certainly doesn’t mean that Jesus can be understood outside the context of His time and place, e.g. 1st century Palestinian Judaism.

 

[catharina]

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.

NO.

 

[Havard]

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.

What Eastern religions are you thinking of? Because Christianity is fundamentally different from Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Buddhism allows you to practice Catholicism because it values results over dogma. Catholicism is an expedient means to bring you to the realization of emptiness, non-permanence, and bring you to reject the illusions that cause suffering. Catholicism holds that we can find ultimate meaning and purpose in Christ. I am not sure how you would be able to bring the two systems together.

 

[rossum]

It depends upon what you mean by “practice Buddhism”.

To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

• Dhammapada 14:5
  To take those three in turn:

• avoid all evil - Follow the Ten Commandments.
• cultivate good - “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
• cleanse one’s mind - Meditate. Try Saying the Jesus Prayer.

I only suggest the Jesus Prayer for those of you who do not currently have a meditation. From the Buddhist point of view one of the good things about Catholic and Orthodox Christianity is that they have preserved more of the tradition of meditation. I suspect due to their retention of the monastic orders.

As many of you have pointed out, Buddhist theory differs greatly from Catholic theory. There is a great deal of overlap in the practice of the two religions. In Buddhism practice is more important than theory; Buddhism is an orthopraxy rather than an orthodoxy.

rossum

 

[SedesDomi]

There are similarities between a guru and a rabbi. I can grant that. That isn’t saying much. There are similarities between the religious teachers of all religions. That is very broad. All similarities are, as you say, a result of certain universals of human religious practice. That doesn’t make everything relative. It certainly doesn’t mean that Jesus can be understood outside the context of His time and place, e.g. 1st century Palestinian Judaism.

I would beg to differ. I think viewing Jesus outside of what one thinks as the sole context allows one the possibility to see Jesus with “fresh eyes,” so to speak, as long as you also recognize that he was also a Jew of the Second Temple period. If Jesus is the Christ, and the Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity, then one should be able to view Jesus the Christ from the perspective of an Avatar, a Buddha, a Rasul, a Rebbe, a Shaman, because (from a Christian perspective) all those are reflections (however limited) of the Infinite Divine Person.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I would beg to differ. I think viewing Jesus outside of what one thinks as the sole context allows one the possibility to see Jesus with “fresh eyes,” so to speak, as long as you also recognize that he was a Jew of the Second Temple period. If Jesus is the Christ, and the Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity, then one should be able to view Jesus the Christ from the perspective of an Avatar, a Buddha, a Rasul, a Rebbe, a Shaman, because (from a Christian perspective) all those are reflections (however limited) of the Infinite Divine Person.

That is not entirely correct. The Second Person of the Trinity did not become an Avatar, a Buddha, a Rasul, or a Shaman. He came down and became fully man and remained fully God at the same time. If one wants to understand His life and His teachings, one must approach Him as He was during His earthly life and ministry, not seek a “fresh look” by forcing a false context on him. It would be like trying to view George Washington in the context of a French general or a Japanese shogun. Not the right place or culture, despite any similarities.

 

[Havard]

Let’s not forget that He is also Christ the Son.
And the Word (made flesh).
And the Lamb (through His Sacrifice we may be saved).
And the Bread of Life (He sustains us).
And many other things…

 

[SedesDomi]

That is not entirely correct. The Second Person of the Trinity did not become an Avatar, a Buddha, a Rasul, or a Shaman.

There is no need to equate the Second Person of the Trinity with these other functions, but we may note the connections.

Like an Avatar, He descended into human form.
Like a Buddha, He knows the transitory nature of matter and energy.
Like a Rasul, He warns us about the consequence of our actions.
Like a Shaman, He shows the dead the Way to everlasting Life.

 

[catharina]

SedesDomi:
re your signature:
Until you become an unbeliever in your own self, you cannot become a believer in God.

I believe in myself as a child of GOD.
I recommend it.

 

[Havard]

Like a Shaman, He shows the dead the Way to everlasting Life.

How do you figure this one? Christian theology has very specific views on life and death, and I don’t see how the above comment could possibly be reconciled with them.

 

[SedesDomi]

Like a Shaman, He shows the dead the Way to everlasting Life.

After the crucifixion, Christ descended into Hades, where the “dead” were located, and He showed them to path to Life.

 

[catharina]

After the crucifixion, Christ descended into Hades, where the “dead” were located, and He showed them to path to Life.

No.

It’s my understanding as a lifelong
Catholic, that He descended and FREED them.
He “showed” them nothing.

 

[SedesDomi]

No.

It’s my understanding as a lifelong
Catholic, that He descended and FREED them.
He “showed” them nothing.

Within Western theology, He certainly freed the Old Testament righteous.

In Eastern theology, He did two things: (1) freed the Old Testament righteous; and (2) showed the righteous of other cultures the path to Life, and allowed them to choose salvation:

They were those whom the Steward and Master of all
drew, captured in the divine nets
and persuaded to believe in Him,
illuminating them with the divine rays
and showing them the true light
– St. John Damascene

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

There is no need to equate the Second Person of the Trinity with these other functions, but we may note the connections.

Like an Avatar, He descended into human form.
Like a Buddha, He knows the transitory nature of matter and energy.
Like a Rasul, He warns us about the consequence of our actions.
Like a Shaman, He shows the dead the Way to everlasting Life.

I have no problem noting similarities but we have to remember that, despite similarities, He was not any of those things. We must also note the dissimilarities.

I am not sure your connections with a Buddha and a Shaman are correct. We also must not forget the differences between an Avatar and the Incarnation.