Thread: Buddhism and Christianity Compatible Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020372

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
In his fascinating book The Silk Roads Peter Frankopan makes the assertion that Christian missionaries were in China during the resurgence of the Sasnian Empire (224 to 651 AD.) One of their tools for gaining converts was to openly say that

"All Buddhas flow and flux by virtue of the very wind [that is, the Holy Spirit], while in this world, there is no place where the wind does not reach." "As such, "man . . . will always do honor to the name of Buddha."

To put it more succinctly, Christianity and Buddhism are the same thing.

Who knew?

I have come to believe that the spiritual principals of Buddhism and Christianity are in no way incompatible. The same thing goes beyond that.

Whaddaya you think?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
That doesn't sound like Christianity at all. Christ is not the Buddha. I can't imagine a Christian missionary using "Buddha" as a proper noun to refer to Christ. Doesn't pass the sniff test.

Calling Christ ***A*** buddha perhaps, if the concept of a buddha is properly fleshed out. But identifying Christ with Siddhartha Gautama? No. That's crazy talk. Jesus Christ was one specific historical character. Siddhartha Gautama was another. No Christian missionary would conflate them.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Apparently they did. There are documents from that period that say exactly that.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Then they had left Christianity entirely.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't really understand Buddhism, it seems to me to be on a thought track which means nothing to me.

But I would note that there have been some who see links between Christianity and Buddhism, particularly from within Roman Catholicism. For example Robert Kennedy seems to be able to operate with a foot in both worlds. I'm not sure what the powers-that-be think of this.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There is also a legend that Buddhist missionaries trawled through the Middle East, not sure when. It sounds fanciful, but I suppose it may emerge from certain syncretic tendencies in some areas between the two, esp. in Asia.

I have mulled over this many a dull afternoon, as I have practised Zen for 30 years, and used to be a Christian. In practical terms they are compatible, since certain areas of Buddhism require no beliefs, and the practice of compassion is common to both, but of course, Buddhism tends towards the non-theistic. At its radical end, it also disputes the existence of the separate self, and even the world.

But there are certainly some interesting publications which straddle the two, for example, Thomas Merton is often cited.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Buddhist missionaries did indeed trawl through the Middle East and surrounds. Remember the Taliban (great bunch of guys) blew up the two Buddha statues in Afghanistan. Somebody put them there.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
I believe going the other way the Budda was [almost] canonised [Looking it up, as Saint Josaphat]. This, of course required some incorrect assumptions*

*Not that type.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think Ashoka was a great missionary sender, 270BC, but I don't know if there are any accounts of them written down. I wonder if any Roman writer mentions them?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
I believe going the other way the Budda was [almost] canonised [Looking it up, as Saint Josaphat]. This, of course required some incorrect assumptions*

*Not that type.

Barlaam and Josaphat were very popular saints during the middle ages. Perhaps his metastory (the de-facto canonization & popularity) shows something about the whole concept of veneration of the saints. Or perhaps it shows people like a good story when they hear one. I think the phenomenon is fascinating.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I was involved in a terrific Zen community for about ten years, and people in it spun off in all directions. Anyway, a friend joined a Buddhist monastery, and another friend became a Christian, and another, a Sufi. Well, we found a common language.

One of our teachers used to talk about grace a lot, although not in a Christian sense. Well, Zen talks about 'falling' sometimes, when you let go of an arduous practise, and fall into the non-dual. I think some Christians describe this also, e.g. Meister Eckhart, and de Caussade, 'The Sacrament of the Present Moment'. Self-annihilation, I suppose.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Apparently they did. There are documents from that period that say exactly that.

Which documents? Where?

I'm afraid I err on the side of scepticism on this one.

The same thing happens in reverse with instances of imagery that is patently Buddhist being seized upon by people who want to believe that they are actually examples of Christian icons in 7th century China.

I think there are overlaps/compatible practices but comparing Christianity and Buddhism is rather like comparing apples and oranges or jazz and blues or an Irish tin whistle with a didgeridoo.

I've only met a small number of Buddhists, including a monk of some rank, and they'd all say the same.

The monk was quite scathing about those who try to syncretise the two, 'They ought to seek to sound the depths of their own faith, to become the best Christians they can possibly be instead of trying to fuse two ways which are incompatible in essence, two entirely different things.'

Intriguingly, this monk is also a poet and I organised a reading for him in London with an inter-faith audience.

The next day I bumped into two guys who'd been at the reading, one Jewish, one Muslim. They'd both enjoyed the reading and the talk / Q&A but both observed, independently, that Buddhism as a concept felt alien to them as it had no concept of the 'personhood' of God.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
We can learn a lot from Buddhismn, espeically meditation styles and about attachment/sin.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Mousethief wrote:
quote:
Calling Christ ***A*** buddha perhaps, if the concept of a buddha is properly fleshed out. But identifying Christ with Siddhartha Gautama? No. That's crazy talk. Jesus Christ was one specific historical character. Siddhartha Gautama was another. No Christian missionary would conflate them.

No orthodox Christian would. But weren't the Chinese missionaries Nestorian - some at least? That might be worth exploring as an explanation if true.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
Knowing quite a few "Nestorians" [though the term isn't used these days, at least in polite society], I find it difficult to believe these were adhering to the faith. They are quite strong on an historic Jesus, and all the evidence they've told me about the China missionary journeys seems to indicate the orthodox Gospel was brought, though of course local adaptions/explanations may be used. This seems a bit too far for me.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Calling Christ ***A*** buddha perhaps, if the concept of a buddha is properly fleshed out. But identifying Christ with Siddhartha Gautama? No. That's crazy talk. Jesus Christ was one specific historical character. Siddhartha Gautama was another. No Christian missionary would conflate them.

I didn't see anything in the quote suggesting that Jesus Christ was being conflated with Siddhartha Gautama.
I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but I don't believe that the word 'Buddha' is invariably used as a proper noun synonymous with the name Siddhartha Gautama.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Ashoka was a great missionary sender, 270BC, but I don't know if there are any accounts of them written down.

He is said to have sent one of his sons as a missionary to Sri Lanka. (No doubt it helped smooth out the succession.)

[ 19. November 2017, 19:32: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
I like Thich Nhat Hanh's approach in his book, Living Buddha Living Christ. See below for an overview and review.

http://www.stephaniedebry.com/2015/01/22/my-response-to-living-buddha-living-christ-by-thich-nhat-hanh/

[tried to get that link into SoF format but my phone kept doing strange things...]

sabine
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Calling Christ ***A*** buddha perhaps, if the concept of a buddha is properly fleshed out. But identifying Christ with Siddhartha Gautama? No. That's crazy talk. Jesus Christ was one specific historical character. Siddhartha Gautama was another. No Christian missionary would conflate them.

I didn't see anything in the quote suggesting that Jesus Christ was being conflated with Siddhartha Gautama.
I don't know a lot about Buddhism, but I don't believe that the word 'Buddha' is invariably used as a proper noun synonymous with the name Siddhartha Gautama.

It could be a translation issue, but if you say in English "Jesus was Buddha" you are conflating the two historical characters, but if you say "Jesus was a Buddha" you are saying he was a man of a particular type or category.

Which was what I was trying to say in the post you quoted, but I may not have been clear.

[ 19. November 2017, 21:06: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which documents? Where?

I'm afraid I err on the side of scepticism on this one.

Page 59. fn 71
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
WTF is fn?
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Foot note.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Foot note.

Which for those of us without access to the book anytime soon says . . . ?
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
It says you are trying to change the topic.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
The Buddah talked about away of living. Jesus asked us to follow Him on his path. How different were those paths?

Rohr argues that if we can see in a non dual manner we would havea radically better understanding of whatJesus was saying.

The Buddha asked us to see in a non dual manner as well.

How incompatible were they on that issue?
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
The fundamental insight of Buddhism is that there is no "self", there is nothing of lasting value. Liberation then is acceptance of this insight, if there is "no self" that "I" need to cling to, then "I" can detach and live a life, moment by moment.

A certain type of Christianity would have a problem with this insight, namely Christianity that is attached to the idea of an immortal soul.

How important is an immortal soul or a fixed "self" to Christian theology?
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Not at all for me.

If the qualification for being a Christian is believing in the Christ, there is a lot of room for variations on the theme.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
If the qualification for being a Christian is believing in the Christ, there is a lot of room for variations on the theme.

If that's the qualification for being a Christian, then Muslims are Christians.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
You and I agree then.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I doubt very much the Muslims would agree that they are Christians.

[ 20. November 2017, 01:18: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Which documents? Where?

I'm afraid I err on the side of scepticism on this one.

Page 59. fn 71
Which cites as the source

Y. Saeki The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China (2nd edition, Tokyo, 1951), pp. 126-7 and David Scott "Christian Response to Buddhism in Pre-Medieval Times", Numen 32(1): 91-2, 1985 DOI: 10.2307/3269964

The last seems to be worth reading for the discussion at hand (though access is limited)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Interesting, Tortuf. IIRC, the Jesuits (much later, of course) worked with the existing beliefs of the Asians to whom they were missionaries.

Personally, I find Christianity and Buddhism to be complementary, at the least. Granted, I've put them together in my own way. I do Insight/Vipassana meditation, and find it extremely helpful. (Might take a look at books by Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzberg, and Sylvia Boorstein.)

Whether or not Buddhism acknowledges God (in a Supreme Being sense) depends on the type of Buddhism, and perhaps the individual Buddhist.

There are many bodhisattvas, sort of super-saints or small-d deities. Quan Yin, for instance, functions as a merciful helper much like Mary, but has different stories. (A good source is "Bodhisattva of Compassion", by John Blofeld. Scholarly sources, and even personal accounts.)

As far as Christian missionaries making it to the East, and Buddhist missionaries going West: People did travel, voluntarily or otherwise. There was probably a lot going on back then that we've never heard of.

Oh, and another good read: "The Jew In The Lotus", by Joel Kamenetz. It's about the many, many Jews who've gone Buddhist, and why. (Some keep their Jewish traditions, or come back around to practicing them.) Several decades back, Jewish mystical resources (e.g. Kabbalah) weren't readily available. (IIRC, you traditionally had to be 30-something to be allowed to read it.) So they went to Eastern religions, particularly Buddhism. Anyway, it's Joel's account of tracking all this down; comparisons between the Tibetan and Jewish diasporas; and more.


FWIW.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
quote:
I have come to believe that the spiritual principals of Buddhism and Christianity are in no way incompatible.
I think it is clear that aspects of Christian teaching are incompatible with aspects of Buddhist teaching, but in both cases there is a range of versions of the religion both in terms of what it teaches specifically and how fiercely people hold to the dogmas.

I find Buddhist teaching very helpful, as a liberal Christian, but I confine myself to westernized Buddhism, which as IngoB (late of this parish and a convert from Buddhism) pointed out many times has little to do with full-on Buddhism as taught in the East, of which there are many varieties.

I assume, with no proof, that those who wish to harmonise the two, see Jesus as a Bodhisattva, which itself is a minority Buddhist belief.

Whenever I get into the metaphysics underlying Buddhism I quickly give up as there is too much detailed metaphysical speculation for me.

The main areas of disconnect are:

1. The idea of individuals as continuing and united by love, rather than all being part of The One.

2. The idea that the final goal is not Enlightenment but The Kingdom of God which means Social Justice for all God's Creation.

Where Buddhism scores for me is in it's emphasis on the work needed to discipline our thoughts and attitudes and the need for skillful, not just sincere, living. There are, of course, Christians just as concerned with this and with Spiritual Discipline, but there is also a "leave it to God" side which is rather in the ascendant just now.

What FWIW my Dearly Beloved objects to in Buddhism is it's emphasis on Detachment.

The good side is where it teaches us to be a whole lot less interested in our own thoughts and here it does teach connectedness with the real world rather than our own thoughts which very often are just obsessive valueless ramblings and phantasies. This, in a sentence, is mindfulness.

It's when it teaches detachment from suffering and grief that it gets more controversial, but I see it as no more than the typically CBT/REBT emphasis on avoiding making anything an absolute need without which life becomes awful.

But it does tend to justify low empathy.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I think my first question here would be “which Buddhism”? There are many.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
The ethical approaches between Christianity and Buddhism are strongly similar but to me there seems one crucial fundamental difference (philosophically speaking rather than in theological detail). Buddhism teaches detachment to gain enlightenment through the avoidance of suffering (bad terms I know, but this will run pages otherwise). Christianity in its essence embraces suffering for the sake of its redemption and enlightenment. Due to this fundamental difference of approach, while it may be possible to see striking similarities in lots of things and find common ground, Buddhism and Christianity remain fundamentally different. At least, this is the impression I keep coming away with every time I encounter Buddhism in any meaningful way (of various types). It's very possible of course that I'm missing a lot more because I'm not penetrating it deeply enough.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Rohr argues that if we can see in a non dual manner we would havea radically better understanding of whatJesus was saying.

The Buddha asked us to see in a non dual manner as well.

I don’t think seeing in a non-dual manner is uniquely Buddhist. Jewish culture is also non-binary.

The binary oppositions that much of Western thought rests upon (alive/dead; male/female; master/slave; body/spirit) come from Greek philosophy. Jewish/Hebraic thought, OTOH, has always been more comfortable with the idea of paradoxes which are to be held in tension. It seems much more plausible to me to ascribe the non-binary elements of Jesus’ thought to his being a Jew than to his being some kind of Buddhist.

(Slight tangent: the great challenger of binarism in more recent times was Jacques Derrida. An atheist, but most definitely a Jewish atheist.)
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Depends on what you mean by non-dual. In many mystics, e.g. 'The Cloud of Unknowing', there is a loss of ego, and even a loss of knowledge of God, since these are held to be barriers to transcendence . This is quite similar to some parts of Buddhism. It's the seeking subject which impels you into hell, since it divides the world into mine and thine.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I don't see Buddhism and Christianity (pick another religion) as being alike in particulars. I see them as being alike in goals.

Transcending self as separate is one of those goals that I see common to both.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I don't see Buddhism and Christianity (pick another religion) as being alike in particulars. I see them as being alike in goals.

Transcending self as separate is one of those goals that I see common to both.

Yes, I've always seen it like this, but I think a lot of Christians don't. I mean, they may pay lip service to the idea of transcending self, but not in the radical sense, that you get in Buddhism, 'neither the self nor the world exists'. Too scary, isn't it?
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
It says you are trying to change the topic.

Huh? How is it changing the topic? You said there are documents supporting the assertion in your OP. When asked to identify those documents, you provided a citation to a footnote in a book, rather than telling us what documents are identified in that footnote. Seems directly on topic to me to ask you to identify the document(s) you’re referring to/relying on.

Meanwhile, thanks Net Spinster.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
The "Nestorian Stele" would be a helpful example of documentation of the more-clearly-orthodox Church of the East mission to China.

The Wikipedia article notes:
quote:
There are also two much later stelae (from 960 and 1365) presenting a curious mix of Christian and Buddhist aspects, which are preserved at the site of the former Monastery of the cross in the Fangshan District, near Beijing.
And cites Moule, A. C. (1930). Christians in China before the year 1550. London: SPCK. pp. 86−89.

I don't find it at all remarkable that an attempt by Persian missionaries to render the gospel from Aramaic into a Chinese language and culture would incorporate significant local religious vocabulary, but am not convinced that including some Buddhist concepts would mean it was endorsing Buddhist ideas. Consider by comparison the relationship between Islam or western Christianity and Aristotelianism, or Christianity in general with Platonism—adopting elements of these philosophies in order to express the gospel is far from abandoning Christianity.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I'm with Bostonman.

Parallels and some overlaps in intention certainly, to some extent, but not exact compatibility.

That isn't necessarily a value judgement.

Germans and Italians are both Europeans but they also have cultural and other differences.

Buddhism, as far as I am aware, is essentially non-theistic - or at least conceives of the divine in a very different way to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

So any parallels and complementary aspects can only go so far.

That's not to rubbish it or slag it off, far from it, it's simply to acknowledge where the fundamental difference lies.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Knowing quite a few "Nestorians" [though the term isn't used these days, at least in polite society], I find it difficult to believe these were adhering to the faith. They are quite strong on an historic Jesus, and all the evidence they've told me about the China missionary journeys seems to indicate the orthodox Gospel was brought, though of course local adaptions/explanations may be used. This seems a bit too far for me.

I suspect your Nestorians are originally from the Middle East, originally. They are not, therefore, evidence for how Nestorian Christianity evolved in China. You've basically got two communities with a common source, located at either end of Asia. One stayed much the same over the centuries and the other, exposed to a different culture, didn't.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
Ah, I was about to reply with something similar, Callan. I do take the point about using the word "Nestorian" for current churches of the east, but as well as the issue highlighted, they have also gone through cycles and are not necessarily to be directly equated with what went before without the risk of presentism. I'm at a loss what else to call them. Whether the suggestion was right though I don't know - I just put the idea out for consideration.

Bostonman wrote:
quote:
I don't find it at all remarkable that an attempt by Persian missionaries to render the gospel from Aramaic into a Chinese language and culture would incorporate significant local religious vocabulary, but am not convinced that including some Buddhist concepts would mean it was endorsing Buddhist ideas. Consider by comparison the relationship between Islam or western Christianity and Aristotelianism, or Christianity in general with Platonism—adopting elements of these philosophies in order to express the gospel is far from abandoning Christianity.
John Zizioulas addresses this issue in an essay in "Being as Communion". Basically he agrees, the acid test being whether distinctives are maintained. Provided they are, then - fine.

[ 20. November 2017, 16:02: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In practical terms they are compatible, since certain areas of Buddhism require no beliefs, and the practice of compassion is common to both, but of course,

Commonality is not compatibility.
quote:

Buddhism tends towards the non-theistic.

Non-thiesm means that god(s) are not the point. Traditions vary about their existence and purpose, but they are not necessary. This is the opposite of Christianity. My favourite quote about dropping GOD into Buddhism is that he has nothing to do.
IMO, the non-salvation bits of Jesus' teaching are very compatible with Buddhism. Jesus would have made a terrific bodhisattva. However, the salvation bits, not to mention the problematic OT, put a sharp line between Buddhism and Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I think there are overlaps/compatible practices but comparing Christianity and Buddhism is rather like comparing apples and oranges or jazz and blues or an Irish tin whistle with a didgeridoo.

Pedantic note: Jazz and Blues share much more than either of your other examples.

quote:

The monk was quite scathing about those who try to syncretise the two, 'They ought to seek to sound the depths of their own faith, to become the best Christians they can possibly be instead of trying to fuse two ways which are incompatible in essence, two entirely different things.'

I think this is an overstatement, but it isn't wrong. Christianity has its own contemplative traditions, which is the bit that draws some to Buddhism. IME/IMO anyway.
Whilst I believe the overemphasis of self in Christianity is harmful, and I do think a degree of separation from self is evident in Jesus' teaching, it is not to the level generally thought of in Buddhism.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

I find Buddhist teaching very helpful, as a liberal Christian, but I confine myself to westernized Buddhism, which as IngoB (late of this parish and a convert from Buddhism) pointed out many times has little to do with full-on Buddhism as taught in the East, of which there are many varieties.

Buddhism in the west ≠ westernised Buddhism. However, Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana Buddhism practised in the east often differs from the same practised in the west. Culture informs religion and, often, this forms a barrier between adherents.
Buddhism also has the same issue as any other religion in that the practices can be at odds with the essentials of the original teachings. And the arguments of what that exactly means.

[ 20. November 2017, 16:07: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I'm glad lilBuddha's come along as it's always best to hear from an adherent of a particular religion or ideological system rather than those who simply appropriate elements of it in a mix'n'match kind of way ...

On the pedantic point, yes, I'm well aware that jazz and blues are more closely related than the other things on my list. I wanted a list that had some similar elements as well as dissimilar - such as 'chalk and cheese'.

At any rate, what lilBuddha writes chimes with what I've heard from the Buddhist monk I mentioned and one or two other Buddhists I've met over the years.

We always have to be careful that we are comparing like with like.

Both Hindus and Christians fast, for instance, does that mean that they intend to achieve the same 'results' or have the same expectations?

I agree with lilBuddha that the 'non-salvific' aspects of Christianity do resonate with aspects of Buddhist concern and practice.

But as lilBuddha also says, 'Commonality is not compatibility.'
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
The "Saviour" concept in Mahayana Buddhism can be compatible with Christianity, bearing in mind, that Buddhist philosophy may be at odds with what some lay Buddhists practice.

Lay Buddhists may ask the Buddha for blessing for increased wealth and happiness, even though Buddha condemned materialism, not much different than Christians praying to Jesus to win the lottery or receive a raise.

Devotion to the Buddhas leads not necessarily to existential salvation after death, but to an increased compassion for all beings. Applying this to Christianity, worshipping Jesus is IMHO not about a lottery ticket to heaven or to wealth or blessing for one's own sake, but to develop compassion for all beings. To worship the Father, brings us to see the world through the Father's eyes, through the eyes of infinite, compassionate love.

[ 20. November 2017, 16:59: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The "Saviour" concept in Mahayana Buddhism can be compatible with Christianity,

Not in my understanding. In Christianity, the salvation is through Jesus. in Buddhism, it is through the teaching, not the teacher. Some forms of Buddhism do speak of someone who will teach the pure dharma, but they are not necessary for enlightenment.*
quote:

Lay Buddhists may ask the Buddha for blessing for increased wealth and happiness, even though Buddha condemned materialism, not much different than Christians praying to Jesus to win the lottery or receive a raise.

And both are wrong.
quote:

Devotion to the Buddhas leads not necessarily to existential salvation after death, but to an increased compassion for all beings. Applying this to Christianity, worshipping Jesus is IMHO not about a lottery ticket to heaven or to wealth or blessing for one's own sake, but to develop compassion for all beings. To worship the Father, brings us to see the world through the Father's eyes, through the eyes of infinite, compassionate love.

Both paths run in parallel here, yes. However, they do not have the same destination.

*The understanding of which is a whole other topic.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Non-thiesm means that god(s) are not the point. Traditions vary about their existence and purpose, but they are not necessary. This is the opposite of Christianity. My favourite quote about dropping GOD into Buddhism is that he has nothing to do.

How is that a problem? The idea that God is a thing that needs something to do is a misunderstanding of Christian (and Muslim and Jewish and Sikh) theology.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Non-thiesm means that god(s) are not the point. Traditions vary about their existence and purpose, but they are not necessary. This is the opposite of Christianity. My favourite quote about dropping GOD into Buddhism is that he has nothing to do.

How is that a problem? The idea that God is a thing that needs something to do is a misunderstanding of Christian (and Muslim and Jewish and Sikh) theology.
Does it clarify if I say God has no point or purpose in Buddhism?
ISTM, even outside of an internationalist idea of God, his existence is an active force. Unless one is a deist, I suppose.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
A book which attempt to compare, and in some ways combine, Christianity and Buddhism talks of God as a 'Notion' and Jesus as an historical person who probably came close to achieving enlightenment within Himself.

The ultimate aim of that particular form of Buddhism seems to be about discarding all notions, especially those centred on the ego. I would have thought that God, (re. the manner in which He comes across in much of the Bible), is way to ego orientated to ever be fully compatible with Buddhism.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Does it clarify if I say God has no point or purpose in Buddhism?

What I'm saying is that if you're trying to correlate Christianity (Islam/Judaism) with another philosophical system the proper analogue with God in the other system will almost certainly not be a god. (Nor necessarily an active force.)
Given that negative theology is an option in Christiantiy, the proper analogue might quite possibly be nothing: the point where the philosophical system deliberately falls silent.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
The music of Bessie Smith is both jazz and blues at the same time.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, ok, change the analogy already ...
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
anteater--

quote:
anteater wrote:
It's when it teaches detachment from suffering and grief that it gets more controversial, but I see it as no more than the typically CBT/REBT emphasis on avoiding making anything an absolute need without which life becomes awful.

But it does tend to justify low empathy.

My understanding is different. Compassion and mercy are very important in Buddhism.

quote:
The last thing I want to say about the Four Noble Truths is that the classic formulation of it has no pronouns. In the wording of it, it does not say “you,” or “I,” or “we.” Those are just left out. It says, “There is suffering. There is a cause of suffering. There is a possibility of ending suffering, and there is a path to the end of suffering.” I myself am very fond of the fact that there are no pronouns, because what it points to is that Buddhist practice is sensitive to our own suffering and to the suffering of others. We can only take responsibility for our own contribution to suffering, but we can be compassionate to the suffering around us. It is equally important to have the compassionate concern going in both directions. We can have the compassionate concern for ourselves and our own suffering, and we treat ourselves with compassion, with care, when we see our own suffering. By looking at suffering in ourselves and trying to resolve it, it is a compassionate act towards ourselves. And being sensitive and open to seeing the suffering in the world around us is a compassionate act that extends out away from us to the world around us. Not having pronouns in the Four Noble Truths is talking about the flow of compassion in both directions equally. That for me is a really central part of what is possible to a mature spiritual life, which is to have our compassion flow in all directions fully. The Four Noble Truths is one of the ways of manifesting, expressing, and applying our compassion.
--"The Four Noble Truths" by Gil Fronsdal (Insight Meditation Center).

Have you heard of metta/loving-kindness meditation?

quote:
Loving-kindness, or metta, as it in called in the Pali language, is unconditional, inclusive love, a love with wisdom. It has no conditions; it does not depend on whether one “deserves” it or not; it is not restricted to friends and family; it extends out from personal categories to include all living beings. There are no expectations of anything in return. This is the ideal, pure love, which everyone has in potential. We begin with loving ourselves, for unless we have a measure of this unconditional love and acceptance for ourselves, it is difficult to extend it to others. Then we include others who are special to us, and, ultimately, all living things. Gradually, both the visualization and the meditation phrases blend into the actual experience, the feeling of loving kindness.

This is a meditation of care, concern, tenderness, loving kindness, friendship–a feeling of warmth for oneself and others. The practice is the softening of the mind and heart, an opening to deeper and deeper levels of the feeling of kindness, of pure love. Loving kindness is without any desire to possess another. It is not a sentimental feeling of goodwill, not an obligation, but comes from a selfless place. It does not depend on relationships, on how the other person feels about us. The process is first one of softening, breaking down barriers that we feel inwardly toward ourselves, and then those that we feel toward others.

--"Loving-kindness meditation" (Contemplative Mind).
That page also has basic instructions.

I find loving-kindness practice balancing and comforting--especially if I'm concerned about someone, or have problems with them.

FWIW, YMMV.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
My understanding is different. Compassion and mercy are very important in Buddhism.

This is another place where Christianity and Buddhism run parallel. A whole and objective reading of either leads to compassion and mercy, but one can justify selfishness if one wishes by selective application.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Does it clarify if I say God has no point or purpose in Buddhism?

What I'm saying is that if you're trying to correlate Christianity (Islam/Judaism) with another philosophical system the proper analogue with God in the other system will almost certainly not be a god. (Nor necessarily an active force.)
Given that negative theology is an option in Christiantiy, the proper analogue might quite possibly be nothing: the point where the philosophical system deliberately falls silent.

Yes, this is interesting in the light of the notion of no-thing in some areas of Buddhism. There is a kind of creative emptiness for some people in Zen, which you could align with God, but not in personalistic theism.

But I think no-thing applies to everything as well.

Reminds me of the famous replies by Bodhi Dharma to the emperor's questions:

I have richly endowed monasteries and so on, how much merit has this accrued? - No merit at all.

What is the essence of Buddhism? - No essence at all.

Who is speaking to me now? - I don't know.
 
Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
My understanding is different. Compassion and mercy are very important in Buddhism.

This is another place where Christianity and Buddhism run parallel. A whole and objective reading of either leads to compassion and mercy, but one can justify selfishness if one wishes by selective application.
The central message of Buddhism is not "every man for himself" - A Fish Called Wanda
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I appreciate the discussion.

It is, and continues to be, a fascinating topic.

My take is that the two are compatible in many broad senses, and in several particular senses (depending, as observed, on which version of either.)

That being said, I like what the Dali Lama said in the introduction to a book (not a quote here.) Don't change to Buddhism, explore the potentials of your own religion.

Christianity works best for me when it is about surrendering my separate ego self and living as a part of a greater whole. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea about Christianity, or Buddhism. It is what it is.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

Christianity works best for me when it is about surrendering my separate ego self and living as a part of a greater whole. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea about Christianity, or Buddhism. It is what it is.

It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it is the most objective understanding of both.
The desires of the self create obstacles in both paths. In Christianity, there is the idea that in the afterlife one will be oneself, but perfected. This is the natural language of beings trapped within their own minds. But I don't see this as a logical result in the idea of perfection. Not that the Christian idea and the Buddhist idea(s) are then the same, however.
 
Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :
 
There seems to be confusion about tenets of the difference faiths and practices and how they correspond.

There is a word for mixing up religions (if I can spell it!) syncretism. That is not a religion but a pick and mix different belief systems to suit oneself.

You need to go back to what the basic beliefs of Christianity are and the basic beliefs of Buddhism, or for that matter Islam. Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the same foundations but diverge in what they think true religion is.

Do Buddhists believe in a God who reveals him/herself to humankind? If not, they aren't the same as Christians.

Do Buddhists believe that part of the Trinity that is God came to earth to show humankind the way to God and then returned.? If not it isn't the same. Buddha is not reguarded as God but sometimes is worshiped in some strand of Buddhism.

There are practices that we can learn from each other to enhance our beliefs but the different world religions aren't all the same.

You may choose to pick and mix but then you end up with a hybrid that is neither fish nor fowl.

Christians don't believe in reincarnation influenced by how you behave on earth. Most Buddhists do.

I am always puzzled by Buddhist prayer flags when they don't actually believe in a God. Who are they praying to? At least not the Buddhists I knew on the various inter-faith groups I have been on and on 2 different Standing Advisory Committees for Religious Education in England. Nor in my Masters in RE. By Buddhists, I mean those who take the religion seriously.

Yes let's use meditation. Yes lets's do yoga (if you can do the positions!) for a form of keep fit. But that isn't the essence of Buddhism.

I would say that they aren't compatable if you don;t do a pick and mix religion.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
If the qualification for being a Christian is believing in the Christ, there is a lot of room for variations on the theme.

I've heard that some Hindus believe in Jesus as Son of God--they just don't think he's the only one.

When people leave Christianity to be Pagan, often because of bad experiences, they sometimes include Jesus in their personal pantheons, because he still matters to them. And then there are Christo-Pagans, who weave the faiths together. (Lots about them online.)

There are Jews For Jesus, "completed" Jews, etc. AIUI, Jews often think of them as a cult.

Islam honors Jesus as their second-greatest prophet. Granted, it's said that he'll one day accept the truth of Islam.

I think that a lot of people look at Jesus, and feel there's Something/Someone there.

Somewhere, I've got a feminist spirituality book that mentions a woman minister who no longer believes in Christianity (at least of the official sort), but says "...but there's something about that Jesus story".

Maybe people are reaching out as they can?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
What's wrong with pick 'n' mix religion? I thought that they all are.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
There are Jews For Jesus, "completed" Jews, etc. AIUI, Jews often think of them as a cult.

I think Jews For Jesus should be considered just straightforward Christians, not syncreticists. They believe that Jesus is the uunique Messiah prophesized by the Old Testament, same as many, probably most, other Christians.

True, they emphasize the Jewish roots of Christianity in their worship and rituals, but that doesn't chhange the fact that their Christology is quite orthodox by mainstream standards.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:

Christians don't believe in reincarnation influenced by how you behave on earth. Most Buddhists do.

Rebirth, not reincarnation. They are distinctly different.
quote:

I am always puzzled by Buddhist prayer flags when they don't actually believe in a God. Who are they praying to?

Buddhist prayers are not to anyone.* The prayer flags are typically meant to impart benefit.

quote:

Yes lets's do yoga (if you can do the positions!) for a form of keep fit. But that isn't the essence of Buddhism.

Yoga is a derivation of Hinduism.

*All definitions are generalisations, of course, specific implementation may vary

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What's wrong with pick 'n' mix religion? I thought that they all are.

Shhhh, don't tell anyone.

Don't listen to him, children; you are all unique and special angels.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Even quetzalcoatl has been syncretized now with voodoo and Christianity. Plus that stupid Coke Santa.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
... I am always puzzled by Buddhist prayer flags when they don't actually believe in a God. Who are they praying to?

Buddhist prayers are not to anyone.* The prayer flags are typically meant to impart benefit. ....

That, for a start, points to a very profound incompatibility between Buddhism and Christianity. To whom you pray is fundamental to Christianity. The notions that prayers can be "not to anyone", or that prayer flags could impart benefit without it coming from somewhere just does not make sense within any normal Christian perception of the cosmos.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

I assume, with no proof, that those who wish to harmonise the two, see Jesus as a Bodhisattva, which itself is a minority Buddhist belief.

A Buddhist who was in the same chaplaincy/spiritual care course as I was understood Jesus to be a Bodhisattva. I got along with him just fine.

Jesus can be seen to be buddha if the meaning of buddha is "aware". Jesus could be buddha just as Gautama was buddha. But probably Gautama could not be Christ (anointed).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis:
... I am always puzzled by Buddhist prayer flags when they don't actually believe in a God. Who are they praying to?

Buddhist prayers are not to anyone.* The prayer flags are typically meant to impart benefit. ....

That, for a start, points to a very profound incompatibility between Buddhism and Christianity. To whom you pray is fundamental to Christianity. The notions that prayers can be "not to anyone", or that prayer flags could impart benefit without it coming from somewhere just does not make sense within any normal Christian perception of the cosmos.
Whilst I agree that Buddhism and Christianity have a significant division, I would say that it does not make sense to pray to God within Christianity either. Not as Christians generally mean it.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Just an observation that all religions borrow bits from other religions, so we should all think twice or three times before accusing others of being syncretists. The more I read of ancient history, the less tightly I hold on to ideas about Christian exceptionalism.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst I agree that Buddhism and Christianity have a significant division, I would say that it does not make sense to pray to God within Christianity either. Not as Christians generally mean it.

Yebbut, LilBuddha, you're looking at Christianity from outside and from your parameters. Christians do pray to God. It's one of the core things we do.
 
Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :
 
Religions can and do borrow from each other, if they are geographically near but that is often more to do with practice than core beliefs. If you change the core beliefs you end up with something different.

The 3 Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have a common root but diverge. A study of these religions even at a basic level will make this clear. There is little in common with the basic beliefs of the Abrahamic religions and Buddhism or Hinduism. (Oh, for decent RE teaching in schools!)

We now know that the so called evolution of religions that was perpetrated in 19th century is a myth. Enough has been studied by proper academics about religion, geographically, philosophically and theologically to understand that although there may be some borrowings, the basic beliefs about god/s and humankind's relationship to their deities, are not all the same.

Yes, I too knew of a Hindu who added Jesus to their pantheon of gods. But that is not the same as Christian belief. Their view of Brahmin and the various avatars is completely different. Moslems believe that Isa (Jesus) was a great prophet but that Mohammed is greater. So that isn't the same as Christianity either.

Budhism doesn't believe in a creator God who intervenes in the world, nor in Jesus, the second person of the Trinity who came, lived, died and rose again, which are the basic beliefs in Christianity.

Yes, I know there are people who might call themselves Christians who may have shades of opinion on these beliefs but since the earliest Christian communities, these have been the bare basics of Christian belief - a study of Patrisitics will show you how the Early church Fathers had to contend with those who taught something different from the faith that was passed down from the Apostles. It's a long, interesting and complicated story.

And yes, Christianity developed many types of expressions through the ages with many add ons and take aways (not the curry and chips kind!) but the basic belief at it's rawest is there.

If people want to pick and mix for their religion that is fine by me. It is their choice. But don't pretend that it is traditional Christianity nor any other major world faith. It is an amalgum which suits you, where you are at this time in history and your preferneces.

To pretend that all religions are the same insults practicing Hindus, Moslems, Christians, Jews and indeed properly practicing Buddhists .

If you want to understand the core belief of a religion and not just go by hear say, an odd ball sect of that religion, or what your experience is, look up a good dictionary of religions and talk to people who take their religion seriously.

So as a Christian, and ex-RE teacher, I may use meditative techniques that seem to be borrowed from Buddhism but could have come from elsewhere too. I may use visulisation and other techniques to help me in my prayer life. But the 2 world faiths are not compatible in basic belief systems.

There is much we can all learn from studying other world religions. Just make sure it is accurate. That can be difficult, I know from experience, as concepts can be complex, and terms from one religion that have migrated into popular culture may mean something else to the practioner of that religion.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst I agree that Buddhism and Christianity have a significant division, I would say that it does not make sense to pray to God within Christianity either. Not as Christians generally mean it.

Yebbut, LilBuddha, you're looking at Christianity from outside and from your parameters. Christians do pray to God. It's one of the core things we do.
Yeah, but no, Enoch. When I make a comment about Christianity, it is within the framework of Christianity, to the best of my ability.
If a Christian prays to God as a form of communion, no worries this is consistent. It is interventional type prying that I think is inconsistent with the God Christianity describes, reagardless of examples of such within the Bible.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
In some senses, I guess I get where you are. My current prayer practice is close to communion but the communion is more incarnate than a spirit resting with spirit. It takes place very clearly within my reality. However, that is the result of years of prayer. It is not where I started and I would only count myself a beginner.

This is part of the struggle, God meets us not where he is, but where we are. When we start to pray the petition prayer is the form that comes most naturally. God does not withhold his presence until we learn to rest in him but meets the petition prayer as it is. God slows to our pace as a father holds out his hands to the first steps of his child.

Jengie
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
To whom you pray is fundamental to Christianity. The notions that prayers can be "not to anyone", or that prayer flags could impart benefit without it coming from somewhere just does not make sense within any normal Christian perception of the cosmos.

Yes and no. There's a strong tradition of negative theology within Christian spirituality. Within the Cloud of Darkness prayer is not directed to anyone we can see or talk about; only towards one whom we love. At that point there's certainly room to touch a tradition that prays but doesn't pray to anyone.
To say otherwise, to say that God has to be understood as somewhere, seems to me to run the risk of reducing God to a something like a created being, and not a worthy object of worship.

[ 30. November 2017, 19:03: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
When I make a comment about Christianity, it is within the framework of Christianity, to the best of my ability.
If a Christian prays to God as a form of communion, no worries this is consistent. It is interventional type prying that I think is inconsistent with the God Christianity describes, reagardless of examples of such within the Bible.

It's your latter point that's the paradox here, isn't it? We Christians get our understanding of God from the Bible, yet you say we must reject a fairly prominent presence in the Bible - a God who listens and responds to our pleas - if we are to be 'truly' Christian.

Church liturgies and the clergy in their pulpits are often of little help in leading us away from an interventionist God. One can guess why. A God who refuses to be petitioned appears to be of limited use to the poor, the uneducated, or the troubled. It's a God who seems somewhat unfathomable or unapproachable to those of us who are barely even 'beginners' (to use Jengie's word) in theological understanding. Such a God requires sophisticated followers, and if the churches insisted on this level of understanding they would inevitably limit their potential audience, and their influence.

However, among the 1000s of Christian sects and denominations out there there must be a least a couple that emphasise God's non-involvement in human affairs. After all, it's hardly a marginal issue, relatively speaking.

[ 30. November 2017, 19:30: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
]It's your latter point that's the paradox here, isn't it? We Christians get our understanding of God from the Bible, yet you say we must reject a fairly prominent presence in the Bible - a God who listens and responds to our pleas - if we are to be 'truly' Christian.

I am not saying what anyone must accept or reject.
Paradoxes exist in the Bible. So how does one reconcile them? Christians say God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving. Such a God doesn't need begging to know what you need. Such a God doesn't need acknowledgement to act. And yet most denominations have intercessory prayer as part of their tradition.
Yes, it is in the Bible. But so is quite a bit of what Christians think is wrong.

[ 30. November 2017, 20:29: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, but no, Enoch. When I make a comment about Christianity, it is within the framework of Christianity, to the best of my ability.
If a Christian prays to God as a form of communion, no worries this is consistent. It is interventional type prying that I think is inconsistent with the God Christianity describes, regardless of examples of such within the Bible.

LilBuddha, yes as Dafyd says, among the traditions of Christianity, there is a negative one. Nevertheless even when we describes God as ineffable or unknowable, he's still there. And, as Svitlana has pointed out, whatever else he might be, a God to whom people don't or can't pray, is not the God who is described in our scriptures.

Although the concept actually comes from a Jewish writer, at the core of our understanding of God, and our place in his world, is an 'I - you' relationship.

Furthermore, and I hope you are only slightly offended by my saying this, for you, as a Buddhist to claim you can describe the God we worship in a way that is somehow a truer understanding than ours, would be much the same as me presuming to try to tell you what the Noble Eightfold Path is really about.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Furthermore, and I hope you are only slightly offended by my saying this, for you, as a Buddhist to claim you can describe the God we worship in a way that is somehow a truer understanding than ours, would be much the same as me presuming to try to tell you what the Noble Eightfold Path is really about.

I am not claiming I am an expert on anything. I am raising the apparent contradiction I see, one that many Christians struggle with as well.
As far as being on the outside, your book is there to read, as is its history. Believing in it doesn't appear to offer any special insight that studying it doesn't.
How it feels, yes. What it says, no.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
lilbuddha

I accept that there's a paradox in God supposedly knowing everything yet still requiring petition. But that doesn't negate petition or make petition somehow indecent. Petition is only a part of the larger story of Christian engagement of God.

Moreover, as preachers often say, prayer is more for our benefit than it is for God's. Petitionary prayer most obviously helps to remind us that we rely on him for everything.

And it's often noted that those who live in daily awareness of their reliance on God are frequently the most grateful, the most devout, and the most fulsome in their praise of him. It may be likely that Christians who see no (personal or theological) need to ask God for anything are presumably also less likely to thank him. Why would they, if they don't think God has 'intervened' to do anything particularly notable for them?

Yet Christianity is a religion that emphasises God's benevolence towards us and his desire to have a deep connection with us. It becomes something different when that sense of reliance and hence gratitude is no longer there.

For Westerners, God may be becoming less personal, more of a 'something out there', and hence with less interest in individual choices, petitions and other interactions. But I don't see how this will make our understanding of God more 'Christian'. (It might bring the religion closer to Buddhism though!)

[ 30. November 2017, 23:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Jengie only described herself as a beginner.

All I know about my state of prayer is while I have made some progress, there is an awful lot of possible travel ahead. Slightly scary when you realise is that all you have for the way ahead is travellers' tales.

Jengie
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Lilbuddha

It appears to me that you are missing a vital part of the Christian understanding of the incarnation. I am not surprised, half the time Christianity backs away from this.

The idea often is that we need somehow to learn how to become open to the divine. Christianity at its core says "NO" to this; God comes to us as we are, where we are, on our term. We do not need to behave well, learn to pray, or understand arcane knowledge before God comes towards us. God yearns for us before we move towards him and even as we start moving he comes running towards us (prodigal son Luke 11:15-32).

Lets apply this to prayer. Petition is one of the most basic forms of prayer to humans. It is often through it that we first encounter a nascent desire for the divine. God often seems to particularly delight in responding to these requests, and I suspect precisely because these are signs of seedlings of faith. Just as a seedling is a precusor of a full plant so these petitions are precursors to more full life of prayer. They are however in some ways really special because they are often some of the few prayers offered where the individual is asking without trying to control God.

C.S. Lewis pointed out that while a human might empathise with a horse, a horse will not empathise with a rat. The higher a being is the more capable they are of empathising with something lower down the scale. Ignore the specie-ism implied here, lets just apply it to beings we know interact spiritually. We are taught that the more one rises towards the good the more one should be able to empathise with others. Now if we apply it to the divine, then the divine should be more capable of reaching us than we are of reaching the divine. All Christianity does is propose that the divine is actually motivated to do this.

Jengie
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Sorry for the third post but Rowen on Book of Face just posted First Coming by Madeleine L'Engle

quote:


We cannot wait till the world is sane
to raise our songs with joyful voice,
for to share our grief, to touch our pain,
He came with Love: Rejoice! Rejoice!

Jengie
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Apart from in Jesus, one is.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The idea often is that we need somehow to learn how to become open to the divine. Christianity at its core says "NO" to this; God comes to us as we are, where we are, on our term. We do not need to behave well, learn to pray, or understand arcane knowledge before God comes towards us. God yearns for us before we move towards him and even as we start moving he comes running towards us (prodigal son Luke 11:15-32).

Jengie

I fully agree that God comes to us. Further, God loves us because God is good, not because we are good, or believe the right way, say the right words, go to the right church.

I have come to realize that God has always been open to me and there for me. My problem was I didn't know it before. I didn't know it because my ego, my self centered fear, was in charge and it was not going to let me truly admit to a power greater than myself. I call this delusional thinking, but there you are.

So, where I disagree with you is the necessity of learning how to become open to the divine. I think humans all have to learn how to reject ego so that they can truly experience God. We learn early on how to put ego in charge. Ego filters God, therefore learning how to reject ego allows a clearer view of God. It's like wiping schmutz off of my glasses.

The fruits of learning how to experience God for me lie in no longer worrying about what will happen when I die. I know that God is here - right now - always. I know that God loves me just the way I am. I don't have to change anything to be loved by God because love is the nature of God.

What I did have to do was learn to see that. And yes, that learning came withe the help of God acting directly and through other people.

In this for me the teachings ob Buddhism have been valuable. YMMV.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
C.S. Lewis pointed out that while a human might empathise with a horse, a horse will not empathise with a rat. The higher a being is the more capable they are of empathising with something lower down the scale. Ignore the specie-ism implied here, lets just apply it to beings we know interact spiritually. We are taught that the more one rises towards the good the more one should be able to empathise with others. Now if we apply it to the divine, then the divine should be more capable of reaching us than we are of reaching the divine. All Christianity does is propose that the divine is actually motivated to do this.

Jengie

Aspie checking in.

My difficulty in empathising - like many on the high functioning side of Autism I can do it but it does not come naturally and I often miss obvious signs - I have not found rising towards the divine makes a jot of difference, but I expect the mileage of most will vary.

I can see a lot of similarity between Buddhism and Christianity, but I also find that the quintessence of Christianity is that its main force is relationship and not philosophy. I have not heard Buddhism expounded as a relationship. I would like to hear anyway that any form of Buddhism is explained through relationship.

I would think that the differences between the two are greater than the similarities.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
]It's your latter point that's the paradox here, isn't it? We Christians get our understanding of God from the Bible, yet you say we must reject a fairly prominent presence in the Bible - a God who listens and responds to our pleas - if we are to be 'truly' Christian.

I am not saying what anyone must accept or reject.
Paradoxes exist in the Bible. So how does one reconcile them? Christians say God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving. Such a God doesn't need begging to know what you need. Such a God doesn't need acknowledgement to act. And yet most denominations have intercessory prayer as part of their tradition.
Yes, it is in the Bible. But so is quite a bit of what Christians think is wrong.

Jesus introduced intercessory prayer. That would likely put the stamp of approval on it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
]It's your latter point that's the paradox here, isn't it? We Christians get our understanding of God from the Bible, yet you say we must reject a fairly prominent presence in the Bible - a God who listens and responds to our pleas - if we are to be 'truly' Christian.

I am not saying what anyone must accept or reject.
Paradoxes exist in the Bible. So how does one reconcile them? Christians say God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving. Such a God doesn't need begging to know what you need. Such a God doesn't need acknowledgement to act. And yet most denominations have intercessory prayer as part of their tradition.
Yes, it is in the Bible. But so is quite a bit of what Christians think is wrong.

Jesus introduced intercessory prayer. That would likely put the stamp of approval on it.
No, no he didn't. Jesus didn't write down anything. Other people said he said things. And this is an important thing to remember about any holy book.
I assume you are speaking of John 17:1-26? Even if this is a right and true representation, I don't think you can get from there to the common Christian interpretations such as 'Help me get the promotion' or 'Please cure Mum's cancer'.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Tortuf

The question is not whether we need to reject the ego/id* but when. Christianity says God moves towards us before we start to reject the ego. It is inevitable in relationship with God that we will move from a false love of self to a truer one but God comes towards us before that. The seedling is not the full plant.

Indeed one of the things I am learning from earlier Christians is that actually we can only healthily start to reject the false love of self when we are already starting to experience the true love of self that is based on God's love for us. To do so prematurely is to grow into a works based form of salvation.

Jengie
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I think the false love of self is something we should avoid, but I would like to raise a polite objection at specifying the need for God to be involved. Acknowledging, at the same time, that TIACW. [Biased]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... TIACW. ...

LilBuddha, what does that acronym mean? I, for one, have never heard of it, and can't find anything by searching that might elucidate.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... TIACW. ...

LilBuddha, what does that acronym mean? I, for one, have never heard of it, and can't find anything by searching that might elucidate.
This is a Christian website. At least that’s my guess.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Regarding interventionism, maybe the problem is that Christians' expectations of God are too high.

Muslims are often said to be a fatalistic people. I don't know how true that is, but when one observes as an outsider, they do seem less troubled by God's silence than Christians are. They don't seem to lose their faith because God didn't save their loved ones from a tragedy.

Does this mean that in some ways Islam is more at home with a non-interventionist God? If so, some might argue that Islam is a more 'advanced' religion than Christianity in this respect.

[ 02. December 2017, 19:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... TIACW. ...

LilBuddha, what does that acronym mean? I, for one, have never heard of it, and can't find anything by searching that might elucidate.
This is a Christian website. At least that’s my guess.
Yep. I thought is would be obvious due to its similarity to ITTWACW.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think the false love of self is something we should avoid, but I would like to raise a polite objection at specifying the need for God to be involved. Acknowledging, at the same time, that TIACW. [Biased]

Ah you see this is picking up the differences. Christianity does rather suggest that our own efforts are never sufficient to overcome this false love. We need first to know ourselves as loved before we are able to rise above self absorption.

Jengie
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Christianity does rather suggest that our own efforts are never sufficient to overcome this false love.

Of course it does. Every religion, EVERY religion, has built into it a bit of dependency. My suggestion is that at least some of this is added after the founders' intentions.
quote:

We need first to know ourselves as loved before we are able to rise above self absorption.
Jengie

I think it can help, but I do not think this is strictly true.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Lilbuddha

I cannot persuade you that it is the case that we need to know ourselves as loved before we can deal with self absorption. What I do say is that there is substantial evidence that suggest this at least a possibility outside Christianity. Maslow for instance put it in his hierachy below esteem and self-actualisation and attachment theory, though I would not want to apply rigourously, does suggest that the love is important. No earthly mother is perfect, no earthly father is perfect; each does was their best according to their goals, insight and ability. I am with Winnicott on this and think most parents are 'good enough' to raise reasonable individuals but to reach out to the divine, that is another ball game.

I am afraid Christianity has problem with 'founder's intentions'. Think of the narrative we tell about ourselves. How do we distinguish between the intentions drawn from human nature of Christ and the intentions drawn from divine nature of Christ. My own take and I think that of most traditional Christian is you can't as the intentions as they appear are an amalgam. If you add onto that the process of recording, where to my reading at least the chance is that God desired the different takes of the gospel writers. I believe Buddhism is worse. The problem I see is that so often when we read scripture of whatever tradition we actually see a reflection of ourselves rather than catch the glimpses of the divine that lie there in at least through selection bias. I was taught I had to read the bits of Bible I disliked precisely because I dislike them. I have found them rather effective at pointing out where I may be blind. Particularly as I so often need to ask two questions:

Jengie
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Maslow for instance put it in his hierachy below esteem and self-actualisation and attachment theory, though I would not want to apply rigourously, does suggest that the love is important.

I would argue that most structural models do not mirror the real world as its intertwined tangle would make a difficult illustration.

quote:

I am afraid Christianity has problem with 'founder's intentions'. Think of the narrative we tell about ourselves. How do we distinguish between the intentions drawn from human nature of Christ and the intentions drawn from divine nature of Christ.

All Christian denominations hand-wave over the bits they don't like and the bible was built by excluding various testaments in favour of others. Evaluation is foundational to Christianity.
quote:

I believe Buddhism is worse.

Notice how I said all religions share this problem? Buddhism has its own issues, some of which parallel Christianity, some of which do not.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Lilbuddha

I am a liberal Reformed Christian. The Reformed have always insisted that we need to take 2 Timothy 3:16 and we cannot simply say lets ignore the Old Testament. It is difficult to get the balance right between the Testaments but we insist that you need to and not just cherry pick from the Old Testament.

You may not like this but do not try and tell me what my tradition teaches.

Jengie
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Lilbuddha

I am a liberal Reformed Christian. The Reformed have always insisted that we need to take 2 Timothy 3:16 and we cannot simply say lets ignore the Old Testament. It is difficult to get the balance right between the Testaments but we insist that you need to and not just cherry pick from the Old Testament.

The bible doesn’t work as a whole without picking and choosing or interpretation and I’ve yet to encounter a denomination which doesn’t do one or both.
Your balance is exactly this. Unless one chooses to view the Christian God as a capricious being, an evaluative approach is the only rational one.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
That is your understandings of 'work'. Yes you have interpretations but for us there is not a single only satisfying correct interpretation. You can produce coherency but from my liberal perspective there is often more light to be gained from where things do not fit.

Again please do not tell me what my tradition says.

Jengie
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
Right LilBuddha for over thirty years I have tried to consistently read through all of the standard Protestant Bible and for part of that time it included the Apocrypha. I have also read and used commentaries from a wide range of backgrounds and have applied a wide range of different Bible interpretative techniques. I have even tried to learn Greek to improve my knowledge of the Bible. Alone and with others I have consistently joined in the search to look for what is God saying through scripture. I have also listened to many others who have sought to proclaim the Word. I am high end but not exceptional in the tradition I stand in even as a non-cleric. No doubt I have got it wrong as often as right but I am always trying again.

In doing this interaction with scripture, I am not trying to read off a single coherent narrative or set of doctrine. That would be to constrain God. What I see is the messiness of people trying to communicate an experience of the divine and often getting it wrong. The text works not by giving answers but by giving space to try and understand their encounter. Of course it is inconsistent. Some of that is because we get it wrong. Some of that is that the divine cannot really be contained in human experience let alone an account of human experience. Some of it is simply lack of comprehension.

I suppose I take seriously John Robinson's popular Quote from an account of his Farewell to Leyden Speech
quote:
...he[John Robinson] charged us before God and his blessed angels, to follow him no further than he followed Christ; and if God should reveal anything to us by any other instrument of his, to be as ready to receive it, as ever we were to receive any truth by his ministry; for he was very confident the Lord had more truth and light yet to break forth out of his holy word
With such a heritage there can never be a single authoritative interpretation. It is an ongoing act of revelation not a final word.

All I try to do is bear witness to the sometimes glorious, sometimes paradoxical and sometimes dissonant interaction with the Divine I experience through bringing my life into contact with the Bible.

Jengie
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
That is your understandings of 'work'. Yes you have interpretations but for us there is not a single only satisfying correct interpretation. You can produce coherency but from my liberal perspective there is often more light to be gained from where things do not fit.

I do not mean to offend, but I cannot make sense from this statement.
quote:

Again please do not tell me what my tradition says.

Jengie

i am not telling you what your tradition says. I am saying that there are inconsistencies in the Bible and that all traditions have work arounds. How you address, ignore or otherwise deal with that is up to you. I’m not saying anything that Christians have not said and I cannot help that you do not like this.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Jengie, whatever LilBuddha may be saying,it makes sense to me and I'm finding it inspiring. Thank you.
[Overused]
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

Again please do not tell me what my tradition says.


This is one of the most startling thing about the Ship. The tendency of people to spout off on what other people believe. It is worse than annoying, I find it offensive. This is only one thread where this is happening on a regular basis.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

Again please do not tell me what my tradition says.


This is one of the most startling thing about the Ship. The tendency of people to spout off on what other people believe. It is worse than annoying, I find it offensive. This is only one thread where this is happening on a regular basis.
You are aware that this is a place of discussion, not proclamation? And it is, at least generally, of a religious nature?
If I say you, sharkshooter, really believe X despite you saying Y; then I am rude. If I point out, in a conversation about religion that you voluntarily join, that I think there is contradiction within the materials and teachings, how is that rude? Especially when it isn't an uncommon POV within your own community.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
If I say that Christianity or Buddhism are complete bollocks, is that rude? I don't see why. It's different from saying to one individual that their ideas are bollocks, but even then, that seems OK to me.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
This is one of the most startling thing about the Ship. The tendency of people to spout off on what other people believe. It is worse than annoying, I find it offensive. This is only one thread where this is happening on a regular basis.

Sharkshooter, if despite Commandment 5, you find yourself offended, the place to talk about it is Hell. Not here.

If you have complaints about how threads are being hosted, the place to complain is the Styx. Not here.

Everybody: please dial down the rhetoric, take special care to avoid anything that could be construed as a personal attack, and take any remaining personal differences to Hell.

/hosting
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If I say that Christianity or Buddhism are complete bollocks, is that rude? I don't see why. It's different from saying to one individual that their ideas are bollocks, but even then, that seems OK to me.

What is felt to be rude is going to vary a bit.
If you say someone’s religion is bollocks unasked, I think that would be rude. If you say it is bollocks during a discussion without any reasoning, it could be rude. If you say it is bollocks during a discussion and give your reasons why, it is not rude. Especially not on a website that bills itself as unrestful.
I find it difficult to see how what I have been saying on this thread is rude and I hope how I’ve been saying it isn’t perceived so.

[ 04. December 2017, 16:38: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Tortuf wrote:

quote:
So, where I disagree with you is the necessity of learning how to become open to the divine. I think humans all have to learn how to reject ego so that they can truly experience God. We learn early on how to put ego in charge. Ego filters God, therefore learning how to reject ego allows a clearer view of God. It's like wiping schmutz off of my glasses.

The fruits of learning how to experience God for me lie in no longer worrying about what will happen when I die. I know that God is here - right now - always. I know that God loves me just the way I am. I don't have to change anything to be loved by God because love is the nature of God.

This is terrific stuff that you are writing. I would only make several points - some people seem able to just slide off the ego without a lot of effort, just as some people are able to love.

In some Eastern religions, the erosion of ego, is followed by a further acceptance of it, as also part of the divine. I'm trying to think of a famous saying on this, well, 'samsara is nirvana', will do.* When the discriminating mind ceases, then the dual ceases. Some of the Hindu mystics seem drunk on this, as every detail is divine, even the mosquito bites. But the West loves its separations.

* Just the proviso that nirvana does not equal the divine.

[ 04. December 2017, 16:49: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If I say that Christianity or Buddhism are complete bollocks, is that rude?

Yes.

quote:
I don't see why.
Then you need to learn about how people feel about their personal beliefs, and how it feels to them to have them described with a rude term.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
This is one of the most startling thing about the Ship. The tendency of people to spout off on what other people believe. It is worse than annoying, I find it offensive. This is only one thread where this is happening on a regular basis.

Sharkshooter, if despite Commandment 5, you find yourself offended, the place to talk about it is Hell. Not here.

If you have complaints about how threads are being hosted, the place to complain is the Styx. Not here.

Everybody: please dial down the rhetoric, take special care to avoid anything that could be construed as a personal attack, and take any remaining personal differences to Hell.

/hosting

Please accept my apologies.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Thank you quetzalcoatl. I take your point about ego coming back.

In my case I still have a substantial ego. I am simply learning when it is my ego's self centered fear that is in charge, or the healthy kind of ego where I know that I have abilities and can accomplish things when I seek appropriate guidance and help.

Everyone's mileage obviously varies. For me shedding bad ego has not resulted in any change in God, or how God relates to me. Indeed I have found that God has always been reaching out to me, even when I didn't like myself. Shedding bad ego (as much as I can anyway) has been roughly equivalent to cleaning the lenses of my glasses.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I saw a great interview with a Tibetan teacher, who had been in meditation for 40 years or something like that, and the journalist said, after all that time, you must have shrunk the shadow to a dot. (Shadow meaning all the murky stuff in the psyche). And the teacher said, no, shadow now enormous.

One of those paradoxes.

Since I stopped being a Christian, I have been amazed to see all the God-intoxication in different religions. There is a kind of core, which abuts them all. In the non-dual, you are the core, you are love, you are the Christ.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Since I stopped being a Christian, I have been amazed to see all the God-intoxication in different religions. ...

Is that really that amazing? Is it any more grounds for amazement than going along to a meeting of trainspotters and then saying they spend all their time talking about trains and going to places where they can collect numbers?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Since I stopped being a Christian, I have been amazed to see all the God-intoxication in different religions. ...

Is that really that amazing? Is it any more grounds for amazement than going along to a meeting of trainspotters and then saying they spend all their time talking about trains and going to places where they can collect numbers?
Ah well, the fault is mine. I had spiritual cataracts, but praise to Chthulu, they have been raised.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0