Buddhism and Christianity

[marmalade]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Yeah, I think I'd go with the internal thing. The triple fires of greed, hatred and delusion.

From Buddhists I've known and from my reading, I'd say Buddhists clearly focus on the internal thing. Heck, many Buddhists are downright obsessed with it. Afterall, meditation is the main practice of Buddhism. I knew a guy who practically tried to live his life in meditation.

Its quite different in Christianity. Traditionally, Christians focus outside of themselves because they emphasize the distinction between self and other. They worship God as Other(and Satan as other for that matter); also, Heaven, is other like God because they both are traditionally considered elsewhere. And they spend their time in service to others(charity work and prosyletizing).

The monastic tradition was always internally focused, but monks aren't the average Christian. Christians have started focusing more internally with centering prayer, but this seems like a response to the growing popularity of Eastern meditation practices.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by marmalade

From Buddhists I've known and from my reading, I'd say Buddhists clearly focus on the internal thing. Heck, many Buddhists are downright obsessed with it. Afterall, meditation is the main practice of Buddhism. I knew a guy who practically tried to live his life in meditation.

Its quite different in Christianity. Traditionally, Christians focus outside of themselves because they emphasize the distinction between self and other. They worship God as Other(and Satan as other for that matter); also, Heaven, is other like God because they both are traditionally considered elsewhere. And they spend their time in service to others(charity work and prosyletizing).

The monastic tradition was always internally focused, but monks aren't the average Christian. Christians have started focusing more internally with centering prayer, but this seems like a response to the growing popularity of Eastern meditation practices.

Look marmy (fine or coarse cut?), if you carry on like this I can see I'm going to be agreeing with you a great deal.

PS like the cat - is it yours?

s.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by marmalade

Sorry for my litle mistake. I meant to refer to Path. But I'm sure you're a lovely person too Patti.

No problem, thanks. I'm Biblically based.

And they spend their time in service to others(charity work and prosyletizing).

Do you mean dying to self and living in Him? In the end, Christians should have others best interest at heart. (That includes time that they understand really isn't theirs.)

Karen (Patti is my cat.)

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Dah-veeth

I like the walled garden format of this interfaith forum. I'm just browsing around and wanted to add a thought to this thread...

What if the Buddha is a Christ and the Christ is a Buddha?

I'll go back to my Baha'i garden now

I realize you have left the premises...but Jesus is not a Christ, but the Christ. (and the Son of God is not a Buddha)

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Is this Belief and Spirituality?

I didn't start this thread here, and we mods have a general "hands-off" policy. Also, I am not the mod for this forum. So if you would like it to be moved, please PM Juan or Q. I can respond anywhere I like in CR, and as I consider myself a Christian and a number of other Christians also consider me to be "in the fold," I think it is reasonable that I can discuss matters in the Christianity forum. Obviously, some of my beliefs bother you, but I am not trying to attack your beliefs in the least. I simply state mine, and find interest in reading others'.

As for being Biblically-based, I read my Bible and I study the history of the texts and languages as much as I can given my spare time. I believe my interpretations are based on the Bible to the best of my ability, and generally my ideas are not new, but rather shared with other Christian writings (many of them saints) from throughout the past 2000 years. As I have said, there is a great deal of diversity in Christianity and there has been throughout time, so I think there is a place for all of us under Christ. I believe that we each do our best in this regard, and I find the differences non-threatening. I figure once we move on to God in the afterlife, the differences will fade away anyway as our understanding is perfected. The main thing is for us to learn to be ever more like Christ, loving one another and serving each other. It is cultivating the fruits of the Spirit that is the evidence of our walk with Christ.

And as for learning things from other religions and texts, well, I am just very open-minded. It doesn't mean I abandon the Bible, but rather that I am open to seeing the beauty of other people's connection to God, and what paralells the Bible, in all cultures, times, and religions. It's not an either/or proposition to me. I don't think it is necesssary for others to do this. The Bible is sufficient on its own. But just like I enjoy looking at art, reading scientific articles, and reading poetry, I also find it interesting and educational to read other religious texts. I know many Christians who do this and find parallels, and most are in the ordinary, traditional and old denominations. It isn't like it is unheard of or outside the pale of orthodoxy.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Marmalade,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by marmalade

That is an interesting view, but the opposite argument could also be made. Buddhists believe Dukkha comes from our states of mind(desires, fears, etc). Whereas, Christians project their suffering as having originated with Adam and Eve.

actually, the Buddhas teaching on this is that Dukkha arises from Tanha, a particular sort of intense craving which, ultimately, stem from ignorance. though the 12 linked chain of causation can be started at any point ignornace is ususally the initial cause for the arising of Dukkha.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by pattimax

I realize you have left the premises...but Jesus is not a Christ, but the Christ. (and the Son of God is not a Buddha)

Namaste pattimax,

i would agree with you competely, Jesus is *not* a Buddha in any way that the term can be construed.

metta,

~v

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

actually, the Buddhas teaching on this is that Dukkha arises from Tanha, a particular sort of intense craving which, ultimately, stem from ignorance. though the 12 linked chain of causation can be started at any point ignornace is ususally the initial cause for the arising of Dukkha.

I read somewhere (oh don't ask me where) that ignorance is the "worst", as it leads to hatred and greed. Sounds about right I think.

s.

[Tekto9]

Originally Posted by Azure24

Basically I was just asking what everyone thought. I don't necessary believe any of this....

Hi dear Friend, but some of us indeed do believe in these things and perhaps even may be able to know to some extent. The subject you have brought here is among what has been called already for about a century: The Evolution of Religion.

And one may grasp its basics through, possibly among others, a simple text as this one, "to be accepted or rejected by the reader according to his own discretion".

Thank you for the attention you have devoted to my own "thinking".

P.S. - Most high and deep it is the image you carry of Gustave Doré's drawing of The Empyrean at the 9th strata, I believe.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

What I meant was that even Christians vary quite a bit, and much of this variety is due to differences in upbringing and their (sub)culture of origin. This difference is even greater among people who may all be experiencing God, but have not heard about Christ.

I don't mean we should avoid telling people about Christ, but rather that I recognize that these cultural differences are a primary reason why there are a lot of religious differences and rather inescapable. I recognize that I can know Christ, experience Him, be saved by Him... and still be trapped somewhat in my cultural lens, unable to see the world (spiritual and otherwise) as clearly as I would like. If we could, then all of us would agree because we would all see the same Truth in every detail.

As for the veil, I agree that Christ became the bridge to unite humanity and God. However, while we are incarnated in bodies, there are still barriers. We may get glimpses and experiences of God, but we are not perfected until after death. For this reason, even Christians still exist with a temporary veil between ourselves and God. We get closer to piercing that veil the closer we draw to Christ and let Him fill us, dying to self and living in Him. However, that all must be experienced through our brains and bodies, which make all sorts of mistakes in processing information, means we will only be able to have experiences and then imperfect expressions of and theories/doctrines about these experiences.

What about experiences they have sans veil? Because you have identified them as mistakes, do you really think they are mistakes? Or possibly that is the only way your mind can process them. Have you ever considered the possibility that they are not mistakes? Perhaps you can get closer to God.

Once you die to self and live in Him, the veil has been eliminated. Personally, I enjoy having a body (and mind) not temporarily veiled. Perfection beyond this earthly expression is something I anticipate, but in the mean time …

When Jesus conquered death, the veil was torn in half. (Although trying to repair that veil seems to be some people’s goal in life…) I admit I am speaking literally. Maybe the “mistake” was using the word “veil.” No cover is necessary when you are dealing with honest Christianity.

[pattimax]

Path of One: ...-but I see all human expression of experience with God as woefully inadequate. Often beautiful, but almost certainly inept. The more one tries to define and grasp and hold the Infinite in finite concepts and words, the more one recrafts the veil.

We just don't agree.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by pattimax

What about experiences they have sans veil? Because you have identified them as mistakes, do you really think they are mistakes? Or possibly that is the only way your mind can process them. Have you ever considered the possibility that they are not mistakes?

I am not identifying the experiences as mistakes. I am saying that once we attempt to express and conceptualize them, we will run into imperfections in doing so.

Take a very basic example- the color orange. So much simpler than experiencing God. Just experiencing orange. But there are languages in the world that have no word for "orange." They have light, dark, and red. How would you adequately communicate the difference between the orange of an orange and the orange of a peach in that language? Would it really be communicating the same thing as what you see in your mind? And how can you be sure that the categories in your brain, the conceptualization of these colors, are the same thing as the real thing? You can invite a person with this other language to look at an orange and a peach, and maybe they will agree there is a difference, and perhaps not. They can experience the same thing, but that doesn't mean that you'll be about to talk in the same way about.

If we can't even adequately and perfectly express what orange looks like, how much more limiting is our language and conceptualization of God? To take the Creator- an infinite, eternal Being- and try to boil Him down into some words? To me, the words point at the experience but never perfectly describe it.

Perhaps you can get closer to God.

I certainly hope so. That is my path and my journey, to draw ever closer to Him.

Once you die to self and live in Him, the veil has been eliminated. Personally, I enjoy having a body (and mind) not temporarily veiled. Perfection beyond this earthly expression is something I anticipate, but in the mean time …

When Jesus conquered death, the veil was torn in half. (Although trying to repair that veil seems to be some people’s goal in life…) I admit I am speaking literally. Maybe the “mistake” was using the word “veil.” No cover is necessary when you are dealing with honest Christianity.

I think, again, we are using the term differently. I use veil to mean the limitations of our body, brains, and language. Expression and conceptualization, both present in all religions so as to make them communal, is necessarily filtered through our brains, language, and cultural upbringing. After we die, these will all be perfected and made one in God, so we will no longer have these limitations.

Jesus conquered that which separates us from God, so we can now experience Him. At our death, we are freed from the limitations of our earthly, imperfect bodies and societies, so we are able to perfectly experience each other and express our worship of God as one- the Body of Christ.

[marmalade]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

PS like the cat - is it yours?

Originally Posted by pattimax

Do you mean dying to self and living in Him? In the end, Christians should have others best interest at heart. (That includes time that they understand really isn't theirs.)

Karen (Patti is my cat.)

Patti,
I didn't mean anything too specific. I was generalizing, but Christians view God in many different ways. I was raised in a Christianity that didn't teach God as other.

Snoopy,
Marmalade in the picture is my boy kitty from childhood. My memories of him are some of my earliest and he lived for several years after I graduated highschool. I like being reminded of him. I use this name and picture on all other forums I belong to.

[Thomas]

The question of "Buddhism and Christianity" as posed here reduces the two to an intellectual exercise.

Neither of the two are intellectual traditions, that is to say they transcend philosophy (in its strict secular sense ... in its traditional sense, that's another matter).

Both are experiential, by which I mean that the truth of both can only be comprehended through our being, not through knowing.

But I would argue then that love is a language, or rather a dynamic, that transcends individual being ... love requires subject and object ... and in love all the veils dissolve ... as a Christian I do not ignore the eschaton, nor do I ignore the interior veil (of the temple), paroketh, which will be drawn aside in the fulfillment of time (as Origen and others hold), but neither do I ignore the fact that this mortal coil is not some transitory vehicle to be discarded (along with the rest of creation) like an old shoe, and that by the rending of the outer veil (0f the temple), masak, this world can be sacralised ... can be resurrected ... transfigured ... but only in love.

The Christian Doctrine calls for a change of heart, metanoia, which is not a change of mind, or the acquisition of some new data, the scratching of a symbol, or the whisper of some ancient secret, metanoia calls for fundamental change of a way of being in the world, by an opening of the heart to the world, an invitation to koinomia, to communio (fellowship), not in me and not in you, but in something that is simultaneously transcendant and immanent.

Love has been reduced to a poor, impoverished word in this world, something to be traded. Give and take.

Better the Greek New Testament word charis — which means love, but also grace ... and gift ... Christian love is not give and take, Christian love is give, and give ...

+++

Buddhism and Christianity are all but diametrically opposed in their understanding of the nature of being and the nature of the human person ... and whilst on a number planes, psychical, psychological, moral, the data of each seems remarkable coherent with the other, these spheres are not what Christianity is, not what Buddhism is ... these are peripheral ...

The differences are there, fundamental and paradigmatic, and they are the heart of the matter.

Thomas

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Better the Greek New Testament word charis

Which is directly cognate to the Sanskrit karuna which is common in the Buddhist scriptures, likewise referring to a love without conditions, extended to all sentient beings.