Buddhism and Christianity

[rogerluli]

David I will have to check out Buddhism much more closely... B)

 

Being able to fly would be very cool...

 

http://i37.tinypic.com/jkf24y.jpg

[tsap seui]

David I will have to check out Buddhism much more closely...

 

Being able to fly would be very cool...

 

http://i37.tinypic.com/jkf24y.jpg

Faster than a speeding locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound...it's SUPER MONK...he's everywhere, he's everywhere....the criminal element lives in fear.

 

tsap seui

[rogerluli]

Some very interesting thoughts here!...I'll throw in one that I was taught by a very old and very wise, Korean Master I studied under. His explanation was very short and very correct (IMHO)

 

Christians beleive that they answer to a higher power. They beleive that they themselves do not possess this power and to attain "enlightenment" ( go to heaven), they must seek the higher powers favor through worship and deed.

 

Buddist beleive that the power to attain enlightenment is within themselves. Thought, deed, life's actions all lead to the path which will bring them to enlightenment. The act of reincarnation is simply another chance. Life after life is given so that total enlightenment can be achieved at some point.

 

By the way, he was raised a in a Buddist family and then learned about Christianity in many years of theological study.

 

I think that really nails it Larry...

 

 

(plus being able to fly... )

[david_dawei]

Some very interesting thoughts here!...I'll throw in one that I was taught by a very old and very wise, Korean Master I studied under. His explanation was very short and very correct (IMHO)

 

Christians beleive that they answer to a higher power. They beleive that they themselves do not possess this power and to attain "enlightenment" ( go to heaven), they must seek the higher powers favor through worship and deed.

 

Buddist beleive that the power to attain enlightenment is within themselves. Thought, deed, life's actions all lead to the path which will bring them to enlightenment. The act of reincarnation is simply another chance. Life after life is given so that total enlightenment can be achieved at some point.

 

By the way, he was raised a in a Buddist family and then learned about Christianity in many years of theological study.

yes, that is an interesting comparison, although I'd say the former is maybe talking from a certain dogmatic stand.

 

To clarify the latter: There is the common phrase that "everyone possesses the Buddha nature", which is simply to say that everyone has the ability to become enlightened. Life after life is a chance to escape 'suffering' (emotional suffering caused by wrong actions and thinking); once this suffering is overcome, one is enlightened and the cycle stops. One can look up Samsara (also, I highly recommend the chinese movie by the same name).

 

While Buddhism taught a prescribed way to overcome this, Zen's approach was to say in effect, there is only "now"... therefore you have overcome it already (or at least at the moment it really takes hold).

 

Chinese philosophy is generally not seeking something, but rather doing (Confucianism) or doing through no-intentional-action (Daoism).

 

To bring this back to Christianity; I think the correct theology is similar to the Buddha nature comment; that provision has been made for all... so it just needs to be realized/accepted/believed, etc... so in some ways, they are really not that far off. For one, the belief is simply in the higher power as the source and for the other the belief is in self. This latter idea is why Buddhism form found fertile ground in China.

[SheLikesME?]

Some or many Christians put limits on themselves and God.

 

We are created in his or their image. We are to be perfect like Christ or the Father in heaven. To me this means we are the same type of creature as God and that Jesus still has his resurrected body like we all will have. What we are resurrected to depends a great deal on us combined with Christs power to forgive on condition of repentance. In other words we can become like him an dbe perfect. Perfection is attainable, but I don't believe in an alter call and that is it. I don't believe in just works either. I believe in faith and works which means most Christians label me as believing in works alone. That disturbs me about those folks. One must put effort into discipline and change and repentance, something I here little of anymore. Just my thoughts from what Y'all are saying the last 3 posts or so.

[Mick]

Below is a copy of an article I initially published in a magazine on holistic spirituality last year and later put up on one of my blogs. It talks a bit about the interface of Buddhism and Christianity. I firmly believe that, even though there are marked differences between the two, the meeting of these two great faith traditions will be of great value in the years ahead.

 

Interspirituality: Buddhist/Christian Dialogue

 

As I have mentioned in other articles on this blog, the 21st Century will be, and already is to some extent, characterized by increasing interspiritual dialogue. Catholic writer Wayne Teasdale has coined the term "Interspirituality" to describe this meeting of the world's major religious traditions. One of the most significant encounters between faith traditions is the one beginning to occur between Buddhism and Christianity.

 

British historian Arnold Toynbee, one of the greatest minds in his field of study, has said that when history looks back on the 20th Century, it will not be atomic power or the personal computer that will be seen as the most significant event. According to Toynbee, the most vital occurrence of the century just ended will be the meeting of Christianity and Buddhism. If you reflect on Toynbee's remark for a moment, you will see that he must have had something incredible in mind when he uttered those words. Certainly, the computer and atomic power have had major impact. At least as of now, we must still ponder what the significance of the exposure of Christianity to Buddhism and vice versa might be.

 

Buddhism is a remarkable tradition and one that most Christians are fairly ignorant about. Many sincere believers think that Buddhists are godless atheists who sit around mumbling and bowing before idols. Not only is this a highly false view of Buddhism, it is also highly insulting. Buddhism has produced some of the greatest minds in the history of humankind and continues to do so. I have studied Buddhism deeply for over 30 years and can say without reservation that I consider this vital tradition one in which all Christians could learn a great deal about love, compassion, and overcoming self-centeredness - all consistent, by the way, with the central teachings of Jesus.

 

Whenever I post something of an interspiritual nature two things happen. First, I get nasty comments from Christians who feel that I am at best an apostate or, worse still, a brother of Beelzebub himself. I would ask that if you are considering leaving such a comment, please refrain. I say without reservation that I do not hold to the notion of Christian exclusiveness and I am well aware of all of the scriptures used to support such a view. "No one comes to the Father except through me," and on and on, and etc. I don't think Christ was referring here to himself as a person, but as a process. I don't want to get sidetracked into that discussion here.

 

The second thing that happens is the number of views on my blog dips for a few days as readers who don't agree with my take on other religions feel that somehow I might pollute their minds. If this is how it has to be, well, so be it. I think the issue of religious tolerance is highly important in our age and if some believers do not think their faith is strong enough to handle exposure to another tradition, I can do little to change that.

 

With that said, let's move on.

 

Fanaticism is rightly identified as one of the curses of our world. Fanatic followers of any sort of doctrine, political, religious, economic, or sociological, can create chaos and turmoil in our world and often do exactly that. Even the most superficial survey of history will bear this out. Whenever a group feels that they possess the one and only truth, the result is they want it to be your truth as well. This has especially been the case in the Islamic and Christian traditions, although religious zealots can be found in just about all traditions.

 

One of the most attractive characteristics of Buddhism is its lack of dogmatic insistence on its validity. From the beginning Buddha stressed the importance of tolerance of other traditions and also the necessity of verifying principles for oneself. His primary advice could be summed up like this: Try it and see.

 

Another reason Buddhism has been less prone to religious intolerance and violence centers on the reality that Buddha never claimed to be a God or god, however you might want to define that term. Buddha only claimed to be a man, albeit an ¡°awakened¡± man. Through the enlightening revelations that came to him while meditating under the famed Bodhi tree, Siddhartha realized that we are all part of an interconnected web of existence and to do violence to or exert undue pressure on any one aspect of this web would have deleterious effects on every other part. All of these principles cited above are reasons why Buddhism is such a tolerant faith as a whole.

 

One final aspect to consider is the place scripture holds in the Buddhist tradition. Although the various sutras (suttas) are considered sacred writings, they are not to be considered infallible or above questioning. Once again, Buddha stressed the need for seekers to verify the veracity of his teachings, which later became scripture, for themselves. Consider the following words of Buddha recorded in the Kalama Sutra:

 

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

 

Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for generations.

 

Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.

 

Do not believe in anything merely on authority of your teachers and elders.

 

But when, after observation and analysis, you find anything that agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

 

How refreshing when you think about it.

 

In contrast, ¡°People of the Book,¡± a term often used to describe Jews, Christians, Muslims, and to some extent, members of the Baha¡¯i¡¯ faith, have a view opposite of Buddhists. The Torah, the Bible, the Koran, and the sacred writing of Bahaullah are seen as ¡°the Word of God.¡±

 

In the Christian tradition, a significant number of denominations require its members to adhere to the view that the Bible is not only the literal Word of God, but that it is also infallible and without error.

 

In marked contrast, Viet Namese Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Martin Luther King, has developed 14 Mindfulness Trainings for his world wide community known as the Order of Interbeing. If one studies these 14 points, he or she comes away with a positive impression of what it means to be a truly spiritual person. The first of the 14 Mindfulness Trainings is pertinent to the subject at hand:

 

Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, we are determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist teachings are guiding means to help us learn to look deeply and to develop our understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill, or die for.

 

The ¡°First Foundation of Mindfulness¡± reminds us that no teaching, even those of the Buddha, is perfect. With this in mind, along with Thich Nhat Hahn¡¯s belief in pacifism, it is easy to see why the Order of Interbeing does not condone fighting, killing, or the willingness to die for a philosophy.

 

Given the age in which we live, not only is such a view as espoused by the First Foundation refreshing, it may, indeed, be a necessity. I know that I have learned much from my study of Buddhism and, if the truth be known, it was through the study and practice of Buddhism that I finally came to appreciate the Christian tradition I had grown up in.

 

As we move forward during this exciting and challenging century it is imperative that we fully understand that we are part of a global community. Economics, politics, religion, culture, and all other aspects of humanity's collective existence are part and parcel of a larger reality - a reality in which all the parts are interconnected and interdependent. Now more than ever, one part cannot be affected in isolation from the other parts. This is not some arcane, cosmic theory; it is a fundamental fact. The crude but accurate analogy I often use is raisin Jell-O - yes, you read that right - raisin Jell-O. If you take your index finger and thump one of the raisins, all of them move.

 

If we indeed live in such a global collective it stands to reason that we should do all that we can to understand each other, including our various religious worldviews. Any other approach is both myopic and theologically incestuous.

[Guest jin979]

enlightenment is not something worked for. desire will not get it . it happens not by choice and is not expected.

[LaurenAmber]

enlightenment is not something worked for. desire will not get it . it happens not by choice and is not expected.

 

 

VERY well said

[Sebastian]

A 'true' Christian of the Catholic variety, steeped deeply in the Teachings of TheChurch, would have a problem with Buddha, IMO.

 

I can't remember exactly WHY that there'd be a problem, but there it is.

 

I have run across some non-Catholic theologians that have stated that is possible to be both a Christian and a Buddhist - the two are not incompatible and Buddhism doesn't break the 'Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me' rule.

 

As a timeline, I can only note that Christianity dinna make it into Buddha's physical realm during the time he stopped being 'The Ruler' and went on his quest for spiritual enlightenment. IE - there's no documented 'visit' of a priest into da BuddhaLand whilst he was alive.

 

Each time I go into a Buddhist Temple, I am in awe, spiritual rapture, to the same extent when I was inside the Vatican...

 

I am sorry to say, there are many Christians who will claim that a Buddhist is a heathen. There are also many published Jesuit Priests who carried on a dialogue for a few hundred years and couldn't find fault with holding dual beliefs in both 'religions'...

 

So, the Jesuits claim Buddhists are not heathens, as well. But - was this generally accepted doctrine, voted on at a Catholic Conclave??? Well, it WAS voted on, but no, the vote dinna pass.

 

The Jesuit Scholars just couldn't get their point across, but hey - THEY DID TRY !! FWIW, there were MANY 'points' the Jesuits tried to get across, and failed, at general conclave. Tis sad, I think so..

[SheLikesME?]

enlightenment is not something worked for. desire will not get it . it happens not by choice and is not expected.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the context but I think it comes from desire and work as well as a free gift. Seek and Ye shall find. KNock and it shall be opened to you. Study, prayer, action in the sense of obediance and self discipline, & etc. Then answers come by various means. However, sometimes without asking it is given as in WHAM, unexpected.

 

But maybe you were responding to meditation. I ponder as I go about things, but don't just sit and meditate, or do I in the car?

[HaoRan]

I've seen bad on both sides (Christianity, Buddhism). I've been cornered by a Christian woman once, literally cornered and was told I would go to hell if I didn't follow her way. And, I've had Buddhist practioners show me pictures of half human, half animal and told me if I didn't follow their way I would be reincarnated like this (they suggested this would happen). This is what I call negative reinforcement. To scare someone down the path they follow.

 

The problem here is "religion" is open to interpetation. Within Christianity there are those who believe their way is the only way. Mormons, JWs, Catholics, Baptists.. and the list goes on. I'm not sure if that way in the Buddhist circles or not but what it has gotten down to for me is energetics. Building spiritual energy and physical energy. Taking away all the rituals, mechanics, etc.

 

For those interested, take a look at "Life and teachings of the Masters of the Far East" by Biard T Spalding.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Teaching-Master...t/dp/0875165389

 

While I don't subscribe to everything in these books I very much like the general idea. That we are all potential Buddhas or Jesuses through our own development and work.

[david_dawei]

enlightenment is not something worked for. desire will not get it . it happens not by choice and is not expected.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the context but I think it comes from desire and work as well as a free gift. Seek and Ye shall find. KNock and it shall be opened to you. Study, prayer, action in the sense of obediance and self discipline, & etc. Then answers come by various means. However, sometimes without asking it is given as in WHAM, unexpected.

 

But maybe you were responding to meditation. I ponder as I go about things, but don't just sit and meditate, or do I in the car?

I'd like to hear Jin comment too...

 

If I had to pick one word, I'd say it comes through 'awareness'.

[Jeikun]

I'm glad someone shared the greek influence... the dividing further and further to seek some more basic structure is readily seen... Finding what is behind each element or atom, as an example. A desire to divide life up more and more... till holistic ideas are non-existent.... the baby is thrown out with the bath water...

 

As the west seeks truth, as if it's something going forward to find, the east (particularly china) looks backwards for truth; history holds the truth.

 

 

I'm curious as to your opinion of the drawbacks to each approach (though you hinted to the drawback to Greek [western] thought). Also the strengths.

 

I think to adhere strictly to either methodology, leads to many missed truths, and perspectives.

 

It's not an easy task to fully understand both (and not one I feel I am up to, I'm far too steeped in western philosophies) because at times they are contradictory, and anecdotally speaking both are right and both are incorrect.

[david_dawei]

I'm glad someone shared the greek influence... the dividing further and further to seek some more basic structure is readily seen... Finding what is behind each element or atom, as an example. A desire to divide life up more and more... till holistic ideas are non-existent.... the baby is thrown out with the bath water...

 

As the west seeks truth, as if it's something going forward to find, the east (particularly china) looks backwards for truth; history holds the truth.

 

 

I'm curious as to your opinion of the drawbacks to each approach (though you hinted to the drawback to Greek [western] thought). Also the strengths.

 

I think to adhere strictly to either methodology, leads to many missed truths, and perspectives.

 

It's not an easy task to fully understand both (and not one I feel I am up to, I'm far too steeped in western philosophies) because at times they are contradictory, and anecdotally speaking both are right and both are incorrect.

I think I'll combine their shortcomings where they are similar (so as to not seem to pick sides); you can ask more direct questions if I'm missing the mark;

 

Of course... this is my own personal feeling...

 

Both have the shortcoming of expecting some effort, practice, adherence to the final goal. This elevates both to a kind of ritual state,although I feel that christianity has some more external outcomes to this (sharing and converting) and Buddhism sticks to more internal outcomes (meditation).

 

In this way, I agree that adherence to a methodology leads you down just that path; on a positive note, people seem to need this; a fence and boundary is easier to follow than open space.

 

I will contrast this briefly with the chinese philosophies: it is said that the ancient chinese quickly felt a kinship to the soil (earth) and seasons (nature) and therefore took nature as it's guide as a 'way' to live... without too much thought and without too much forced intention. This was the beginning of Daoism.

 

Zen has been argued to be Daoism in Buddhist disguise... and I agree. It was mostly stating that only "now" matters; Deal with life in real-time.

 

Confucianism is possibly closer to ritual thinking as it has a prescribed way of thinking and behaving. Again, rules are easy for the mass to understand and therefore follow and is partly why when pragmatism is mixed with an expected behavior that this is most appealing to the masses.

 

Another saying is that the chinese realized that direct action accomplishes more than ritual. For this reason, when Buddhism first entered china it was dubbed chinese buddhism; In order to make a connection to the chinese, daoist terms were borrowed and Zen was born... but it didn't last in the long run (and found fertile ground in Japan)... Buddhism finally took root now that it's basic ideas were understand, and being a little more ritual like made it easy to follow like Confucianism. What was practical was kept and what was too metaphysical was discarded. In the end, the chinese mix confucianism, daoism, and buddhism into a whole; Today, this would be called Neo-Confucianism and what has basically been the philosophy of the last 800+ years in china. Essentially a salad philosophy; whatever tastes good... eat it; discard what doesn't appeal...