Buddhism and Christianity

[Xavier Breath]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

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.

This is perhaps the unique characteristic of Christianity: That God humiliated and willingly truncated himself in order to enter the world in a human body and perceive the world as we, his children, experience it. The God of our Lord has experienced our limited perception, and even experienced the feeling of being separated from God ("Eloi, Eloi, lameth sabechthani")! This is a feat unprecedented in other religions to my knowledge. C S Lewis's Screwtape describes this as a "disgusting" "advantage of the Enemy".
Does Buddha parallel this? Did Christ ever say, "If you encounter Christ on the road, kill him"? Is there another religion in which the god at its head assumed human form and experienced the entire range of human experience, including separation from Himself?

[Xavier Breath]

I almost forgot, this means it's not up to US to bridge the gap of our imperfect perceptions; God will meet us where we are, and He can do so perfectly having experienced the world through human eyes and brain and body. By taking this sojourn into our reality, God has, I believe, taken this burden upon Himself, and is mindful of and capable of compensating for our info-processing mistakes.
This is the other advantage of Christianity over Buddhism, as PattiMax pointed out...Buddha died, and is not risen again, and Christ died, and rose, and is ALIVE.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Xavier Breath,

thank you for the posts.

Originally Posted by Xavier Breath

Does Buddha parallel this? Did Christ ever say, "If you encounter Christ on the road, kill him"?

parallel what? clearly the Buddhas teachings would not be couched in terms of seperation from a creator deity.

may i ask you what you think that statement means? you do realize, of course, that this is not a statement of the Buddhas but of a particular Ch'an teacher, correct?

This is the other advantage of Christianity over Buddhism, as PattiMax pointed out...Buddha died, and is not risen again, and Christ died, and rose, and is ALIVE.

it is only due to your preconceptions that you view this as an advantage. without these apriori ideas such things as "advantage" are nonsensical in such a discussion.

what aspect of being, in your estimation, is the Buddha? i.e. what do you think it is that is born and dies?

the Buddha conquered both becoming and ceasing, life and death and states so directly in the teachings. further, the Buddha has arisen in this world system many, many times. he specifically mentions 14 of them but goes on to say that they are innumerable and really rather irrelevant to ones own spiritual progress.

perhaps Buddhism isn't what you think it is?

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by 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).

the Buddha specifically teaches that one can approach the Dharma through reason and contemplation and contains a very large body of material which is quite academic in nature. of course the cognizance of the teachings will cause a being to implement the teachings which thus engenders the expereince.

i'm not sure what you mean by the transcend philosophy, could you elaborate on that thought a bit more?

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

the Buddha teaches that one can comprehend and understand the Dharma well prior to having the experience of the states of being which the practice produces. of course this is rather dependent upon a beings capacities and so forth and should not be misunderstood to indicate that all beings are capable of such.

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.

can you explain "change of heart" in some manner that does not indicate that we are speaking of a beings mental continuum? i'm afraid that i don't give much creedence to thinking and feeling hearts and all of that.. too much anthropormorphization for me.

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

i agree. many words have lost their meaning or acquired new ones through various processes not least of which is Newspeak. when someone says that they love a hamburger i know that we have very different understandings of the term love.

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 ...

do you mean in an ideal sense?

are you meaning to imply that the Buddhist idea of equaniminous compassion towards all sentient beings is a give and take?

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

quite.

metta,

~v

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by bob x

Which is directly cognate to the Sanskrit karuna which is common in the Buddhist scriptures...

Well, there's that that had passed me by! Thanks for that. Have you any references to hand that argue the cognate link, I'd be interested? I've followed this kind of thing before, only to discover a false cognate.

Originally Posted by bob x

... likewise referring to a love without conditions, extended to all sentient beings.

Which illustrates my point, superfically both are the same, but the reasoning behind the two traditions is radically different.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Greetings Vajradhara,

Let me say from the outset my reply was in no wise intended to disparage the Buddhist tradition. Rather it disparaged the scholarship of the author in making his correlations and assumptions.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the Buddha specifically teaches that one can approach the Dharma through reason and contemplation and contains a very large body of material which is quite academic in nature. of course the cognizance of the teachings will cause a being to implement the teachings which thus engenders the expereince.

Our traditions agree on that point.

Originally Posted by bob x

i'm not sure what you mean by the transcend philosophy, could you elaborate on that thought a bit more?

By philosophy I should have qualified the term as referring to a post-enlightenment and thus current understanding of the term. Traditionally philosophy is 'the love of wisdom' which belongs more to man's pursuit of truth, rather than the pursuit of empirical knowledge.

I am loathe to imply anything about 'Asiatic philosophy', as the authors I have read on that subject observe that the West tends towards categories whereas the East tends to be more fluid ...

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the Buddha teaches that one can comprehend and understand the Dharma well prior to having the experience of the states of being which the practice produces. of course this is rather dependent upon a beings capacities and so forth and should not be misunderstood to indicate that all beings are capable of such.

Again we are in broad alignment. Christian (or at least Catholic) doctrine teaches that one can come to a comprehension of God as an objective reality through the study of nature. The experience of the Divine is, of course, a different matter ... on that ground I would assume our respective traditions diverge.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

can you explain "change of heart" in some manner that does not indicate that we are speaking of a beings mental continuum? i'm afraid that i don't give much creedence to thinking and feeling hearts and all of that.. too much anthropormorphization for me.

Metanoia actually means 'beyond the mind' and in the Church signifies a transformation of our whole mode of process. One might say from 'self-centred' to 'God-centred' — "In him we live and move and have our being" as St. Paul says. "The kingdom of God is at hand" as the Scriptures say, or "is within" ... but to realise such requires this transformation, and the Fathers often referred to metanoia as "putting on a new mind' ... to use "Christ within" as a means of self-justification is to miss the point, it's thinking with the old mind.

Metanoia is a disposition to what is truly objective, beyond self and how the self determines the world.

'Change of heart' draws from Christianity's Hebrew heritage, which saw the heart as the core and centre of being.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

do you mean in an ideal sense?

No. In a real sense.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

are you meaning to imply that the Buddhist idea of equaniminous compassion towards all sentient beings is a give and take?

Not at all ... I am sorry if that appears to be the inplication. I was opposing Christian love to Western materialism, not in any way to Buddhist thought.

Pax tecum,

Thomas

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Xavier Breath

This is perhaps the unique characteristic of Christianity: That God humiliated and willingly truncated himself in order to enter the world in a human body and perceive the world as we, his children, experience it. The God of our Lord has experienced our limited perception, and even experienced the feeling of being separated from God ("Eloi, Eloi, lameth sabechthani")! This is a feat unprecedented in other religions to my knowledge. C S Lewis's Screwtape describes this as a "disgusting" "advantage of the Enemy".

Actually, it is not entirely unique to Christianity. From what I've read, in some of the Celtic legends, there were gods that became incarnate and sacrificed themselves for the salvation of others. That said, it does not negate the uniqueness of Christ for me. I see these other legends as a hint of what was to come- Jesus Christ.

Is there another religion in which the god at its head assumed human form and experienced the entire range of human experience, including separation from Himself?

There are many religions in which gods assume human form and experience the range of human experience. From my knowledge, however, none include separation from Itself except Christianity. I think this is a unique concept in Christianity because of the concept of the trinity. If God is three-in-one, one of the three can become incarnate and experience separation from the others. In most traditions, gods and goddesses are seen as singular beings, though often with multiple manifestations. When they are reported to incarnate, they do so in their entirety. So far as I know, none of the Hindu gods or godesses, for example, actually exist as multiple persons in one, but rather as multiple manifestations of one. There were tripartite godesses in Celtic mythology, but so far as I know, these also were more akin to manifestations than the Christian concept of trinity.

I almost forgot, this means it's not up to US to bridge the gap of our imperfect perceptions; God will meet us where we are, and He can do so perfectly having experienced the world through human eyes and brain and body. By taking this sojourn into our reality, God has, I believe, taken this burden upon Himself, and is mindful of and capable of compensating for our info-processing mistakes.

I wholeheartedly agree. We are saved by grace and not by our own doing, though we have to choose to receive salvation. I feel blessed that I feel that God understands me perfectly, in part because He was willing to experience the human life. I believe God compensates for our info-processing mistakes, but that doesn't mean that we fully understand or can describe God. God forgives our mistakes, but we still make them. Kind of like God forgives our sins, but while we are here on earth, we still sin no matter how hard we try not to.

This is the other advantage of Christianity over Buddhism, as PattiMax pointed out...Buddha died, and is not risen again, and Christ died, and rose, and is ALIVE.

Whether or not this is an advantage would depend on one's perspective. From what I understand of Buddhism, the point is not to rise again. Everyone is understood to keep reincarnating until one breaks free from the cycle of life and death and rebirth (and suffering) and is extinguished, like blowing out the flame of a candle.

I think underlying the big differences in Christianity and Buddhism, such as the overarching afterlife goal for the self (reunion and everlasting life with God in the former, extinguishing suffering and rebirth in the latter) is a very different perspective of life. A different focus, from a very different place of assumption. Many (most?) Christians believe there is a God and the earth was once perfect. We then wish to return to God and a perfect life with God. We see suffering as a state that is more external to ourselves- a state of the world we live in and in which we are somewhat trapped, that began earlier in time and continues to this day. While the separation we have from God has been obliterated by Christ, the earth has not yet been perfected. Overall, we seek to mitigate suffering through serving and loving others, are taught by Christ to be patient in our suffering, and that this suffering is temporary, because we will only live on earth once and then will go on to God's judgement, and in Christ we are covered by grace.

From what I understand of Buddhism (I've had a few classes, but I'm not a Buddhist), most Buddhists believe there is not a God (it is an atheistic or agnostic tradition- if there are gods, they have not much to do with the path to liberation) and the earth was never perfect. The goal then is to stop one's cycle of suffering, and also to benevolently try to help others stop theirs'. Suffering is seen as a state that is inherent to living, so the antidote to suffering is ending one's existence. There is no eternal soul, just the illusion of one. There is no far-off time in which a God will make the earth and all in it perfect, so there is no reason to just stand by and wait while suffering. It makes more sense to actively end attachment (which leads to suffering) and learn to simply love in a detached way all beings. There is no God who will save you, you must end your suffering yourself.

The two are very, very different though the morals of both are similar. While reading the teachings of Buddha and learning about Buddhism, I find much beauty and I find that the ethics of Jesus and Buddha are very compatible. But I find that the underlying principles of each are very different and at times opposite each other.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Greetings Vajradhara,

Let me say from the outset my reply was in no wise intended to disparage the Buddhist tradition. Rather it disparaged the scholarship of the author in making his correlations and assumptions.

thank you for the clarification and i would tend to agree that the scholarship of the article is intended to promote a particular view not, necessairly, expound the doctrines of the two traditions in any comprehensive manner.

By philosophy I should have qualified the term as referring to a post-enlightenment and thus current understanding of the term. Traditionally philosophy is 'the love of wisdom' which belongs more to man's pursuit of truth, rather than the pursuit of empirical knowledge.

I am loathe to imply anything about 'Asiatic philosophy', as the authors I have read on that subject observe that the West tends towards categories whereas the East tends to be more fluid ...

i was thinking this was your point but i would rather ask. there is not the same dividing line in our philosophical schools regarding knowledge of ontological reality and the pursuit of Wisdom, in point of fact, this investigation of reality is the spur, as it were, to propel a being to pursue the spiritual life, the investigation of truth, as it were.

Metanoia actually means 'beyond the mind' and in the Church signifies a transformation of our whole mode of process.

please bear with me here.

what does "beyond the mind" actually signify? are you proposing that there is a state of consciousness which is supramundane to the emergent consciousness with which we interact with our world?

would not this change in being have to be a change in a beings consciousness or are you indicating that this change is pysiological in nature?

One might say from 'self-centred' to 'God-centred' — "In him we live and move and have our being" as St. Paul says. "The kingdom of God is at hand" as the Scriptures say, or "is within" ... but to realise such requires this transformation, and the Fathers often referred to metanoia as "putting on a new mind' ... to use "Christ within" as a means of self-justification is to miss the point, it's thinking with the old mind.

i can gather from this that we are still speaking of the consciousness of the being, a transformed consciousness but consciousness nonetheless.

Metanoia is a disposition to what is truly objective, beyond self and how the self determines the world.

'Change of heart' draws from Christianity's Hebrew heritage, which saw the heart as the core and centre of being.

whilst it is certain that many traditions use the heart metaphor to represent the center of being that is really just a metaphor, wouldn't you agree? we are not, literally, changing hearts with beings.

naturally the Dharma traditions note this aspect of being as well, we note several more centers in the body where emotive response seems to originiate, the heart, the lower abdomen and so forth. these areas or Chakras in our system, correspond to particular never and glandular clusters in the human body which is why they respond as they do.

No. In a real sense.

experience with Christians would lead this being to the conclusion that many Christians do not practice this sort of loving mind and that Christian love is the same as any other, dependent upon causes and conditions to arise.

i understand that Christians, per se, have four definitions of the term love so i may not be using the right one in my discourse with you.

metta,

~v

[Thomas]

Greetings path_of_one ...

I posted an excerpt from your answer below, not because I disagree with it necessarily, but because I think it highlights a number of misunderstood aspects of Catholic/orthodox doctrine. This is not the thread for such discussions, but I thought it might, if nothing else, offer food for thought...

Originally Posted by path_of_one

There are many religions in which gods assume human form and experience the range of human experience. From my knowledge, however, none include separation from Itself except Christianity.

Another aspect of this is that Christ reconstitutes human nature in Himself, to use a very poor analogy, he rewrites the blueprint.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think this is a unique concept in Christianity because of the concept of the trinity.

The Trinity is unique in Christianity. There are triunes everywhere, it is true, but no expression quite corresponds with the Trinity ... those who says 'it's the same as' don't understand it.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

If God is three-in-one, one of the three can become incarnate and experience separation from the others.

Tricky ground here ... it is Christian Doctrine that there was never a time when the Trinity was absent a member ... so even when Our Lord walked the earth among men, the Trinity was in no way diminished.

By the same token, the Trinity was Trinity before the Incarnation, during the Incarnation, and after the Incarnation.

+++

Pax tecum,

Thomas

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Greetings path_of_one ...

I posted an excerpt from your answer below, not because I disagree with it necessarily, but because I think it highlights a number of misunderstood aspects of Catholic/orthodox doctrine. This is not the thread for such discussions, but I thought it might, if nothing else, offer food for thought...

I appreciate it, Thomas. I always find your discussions interesting and useful.

Another aspect of this is that Christ reconstitutes human nature in Himself, to use a very poor analogy, he rewrites the blueprint.

I might need some clarification here. Are you saying that Christ's incarnation rewrote the blueprint of humanity (or the human soul)? By becoming human, he fundamentally changed humanity and our relationship to God?

The Trinity is unique in Christianity. There are triunes everywhere, it is true, but no expression quite corresponds with the Trinity ... those who says 'it's the same as' don't understand it.

I agree. That's what I was getting at. Triune deities appear all over the place, but they are not the same as the Trinity, which has always appeared as unique to me. I tend to view the prevalence of triune-ness in religions that predate Christianity as a foreshadowing, but not the same as the Trinity at all. That's what I was getting at- multiple manifestations (three or otherwise) of a god/dess is not the same thing as the Trinity. Though I do believe that religions existing prior to Jesus did seek God and people experienced God in some way. I speculate that perhaps the prevalence of three and one in other religions foreshadows what would become more apparent when Jesus arrived in the world. But then, two, four, and five are pretty common in religions as well. Who knows?

Tricky ground here ... it is Christian Doctrine that there was never a time when the Trinity was absent a member ... so even when Our Lord walked the earth among men, the Trinity was in no way diminished.

By the same token, the Trinity was Trinity before the Incarnation, during the Incarnation, and after the Incarnation.

I see that as a mystery. I agree with what you say, and yet at the same time Jesus felt the separation of himself from the Father: "Lord, Lord why have you forsaken me?" I don't think the Trinity was diminished during the time Jesus was on earth, I view Jesus as the incarnation of the Word, which was before the incarnation, existed during, and continues to live. It is a mystery intellectually, for me, how Christ both was and was not separated from God in that moment that He shouldered the world's sins, but one I don't worry too much about solving. But any insight you have would certainly be welcome. I tend to be mildly interested in the details, but not worried too much about them, following more an experiential and simple path. But I'm always fascinated to learn more when I get a chance (I just don't pursue it on my own).

[Thomas]

Greetings, Vajradhara —

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

please bear with me here.

And me likewise ...

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

what does "beyond the mind" actually signify? are you proposing that there is a state of consciousness which is supramundane to the emergent consciousness with which we interact with our world?

I am saying that I am a moment of contingent being who finds himself in a world of other modes of contingent being ... and yet the idea of being, of being as such, beyond all degrees and modes of manifestation, hints at eternity ... or rather the transcendentals of Greek philosophy, the Real, the True, and so forth. (I was going to say 'the Beautiful' but was conscious this might waylay us.)

The quest then is for being beyond all contingency. The search for Being In Itself ... not for what is presented, but for the Presence that presents Itself to us, and yet we, too, are intimately and immanently part of that Presence.

Man is driven to reach beyond himself, not in the grasping sense of possession which, in my Tradition, we devolve to the sensible appetite ...

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

would not this change in being have to be a change in a beings consciousness or are you indicating that this change is pysiological in nature?

That is a profound question ... perhaps, dare I suggest ... that one can read metanoia as a correlative of enlightenment (small 'e' ... I am talking in the general sense. If I were comparing our respective Traditions, I would use the capital, out of respect of yours, but again am loathe to do so, lest from my perspective I delimit its intrinsic meaning inherent in yours.

But yes ... I have reason to believe that the physiological does change ...

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i can gather from this that we are still speaking of the consciousness of the being, a transformed consciousness but consciousness nonetheless.

May I push the analogy? May I suggest a consciousness of Being, of which being is a part? A consciousness of being in Being?

I am aware of the trap ... but how do we avoid it? Beyond-Being (as the philosophers say).

John Scottus Eriugena in the 9th century wrote a treatise "On the Division of Nature". He used 'nature' to encompass everything, the natural and the supernatural:
That which is created and creates;
That which is uncreated and creates;
That which is created and does not create;
That which is uncreated and does not create.

The last, of course, is arrived at by logic as it in no wise manifest, the Divine Darkness, in more prosaic terms ... but not 'dark matter' or 'god of the gaps'. I think Eriugena marvelled at the mind that can conceive it, as well as its implication.

May I ask a question ... is there any correlation between what I am groping towards, and Buddha Nature? Not being sly or trick here ... just realising that it is a term I 'know', and could essay an answer, but do I understand it properly (within the context of this discussion, of course)?

[quote=Vajradhara;136893]
whilst it is certain that many traditions use the heart metaphor to represent the center of being that is really just a metaphor, wouldn't you agree? we are not, literally, changing hearts with beings.[/quite]
Our Hebrew heritage would say heart, our Hellenic heritage would say mind ... but yes, in both cases they are a metaphor signifying a metaphor.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

naturally the Dharma traditions note this aspect of being as well, we note several more centers in the body where emotive response seems to originiate, the heart, the lower abdomen and so forth. these areas or Chakras in our system, correspond to particular never and glandular clusters in the human body which is why they respond as they do.

In Old English (or should that be 'ye olde english') the term 'bowel' was often deployed as signifying that which we are ... yes, I think these metaphors are drawn from sensible imagery.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

experience with Christians would lead this being to the conclusion that many Christians do not practice this sort of loving mind and that Christian love is the same as any other, dependent upon causes and conditions to arise.

If by that you mean we are far from perfect, then yes, I am obliged to agree.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i understand that Christians, per se, have four definitions of the term love so i may not be using the right one in my discourse with you.

Offhand I'm not with you, unless you mean agape, caritas, eros, philia?

Can I ask something else, a complete aside?

Does your Tradition (or rather how does your Tradition) hold a view of any internal relationship between Buddha, Dharma and Sangha ... as a mode of being (if that applies) ... perhaps I should explain.

There is a doctrine in Christianity of the Corpus Mysticum. It's one of the 'rediscovered' treasures of our Tradition in the theological movement called "Ressourcement" ('back to the source') to which I humbly aspire.

Historically, the Incarnate Son, the Church, the Eucharist, Scripture itself, are all modes of the Corpus Mysticum. Modernity reads the term in a categorical sense ... as a mystery. An ineffible object of contemplation. The older Tradition commentaries used it in a more dynamic sense, not so much as an occluded object, but as something one engages in, that draws one out of selfhood ... it is a study that keeps intruding, and something my tutors have directed me towards, so not sure if its relevant ... feel free to discard if not ...

Pax tecum,

Thomas

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I am saying that I am a moment of contingent being who finds himself in a world of other modes of contingent being ... and yet the idea of being, of being as such, beyond all degrees and modes of manifestation, hints at eternity ... or rather the transcendentals of Greek philosophy, the Real, the True, and so forth. (I was going to say 'the Beautiful' but was conscious this might waylay us.)

it does?

it seems to strongly suggest that humans, like everything else, are impermanent not eternal, to my way of thinking at any rate.

you will not be surprised to learn that my view is not based upon Greeks nor their particular philosophical postulates and that such concepts as "the True" and "The Real" are fairly nonesensical to beings outside of this paradigm.

though i'm not terribly versed in Greek thought weren't these some of Aristotles ideas.. some sort of Master Archetype from which manifestations were only copies or shadows?

The quest then is for being beyond all contingency. The search for Being In Itself ... not for what is presented, but for the Presence that presents Itself to us, and yet we, too, are intimately and immanently part of that Presence.

given the way in which you've capitalized presence i have the feeling that we are not using this term in the same way and i'm not sure what you mean.

That is a profound question ... perhaps, dare I suggest ... that one can read metanoia as a correlative of enlightenment....

But yes ... I have reason to believe that the physiological does change ...

so we could reasonably detect this change with medical instrumentation?

May I push the analogy? May I suggest a consciousness of Being, of which being is a part? A consciousness of being in Being?

I am aware of the trap ... but how do we avoid it? Beyond-Being (as the philosophers say).

interdependent co-arising.

in any event, i'm not sure what you're getting at... are you suggesting that a human being becomes aware of the beingness of their nature? the non-static, ever changing aspect of being which is imputed by the ego as the self or soul?

May I ask a question ... is there any correlation between what I am groping towards, and Buddha Nature? Not being sly or trick here ... just realising that it is a term I 'know', and could essay an answer, but do I understand it properly (within the context of this discussion, of course)?

i wouldn't think so. Buddhanature has a very mysterious sound about it but it is, in reality, a very straight forward idea. Buddhanature means that every sentient being has the potential to Awaken to the essential nature of consciousness when the right causes and conditions are present.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Our Hebrew heritage would say heart, our Hellenic heritage would say mind ... but yes, in both cases they are a metaphor signifying a metaphor.

do you agree that the heart is a muscle which pumps blood throughout the body and is not a sentient being? just clarifying since many Christians that i speak with have just such a view.

If by that you mean we are far from perfect, then yes, I am obliged to agree.

no, i don't mean that. sorry for the confusion. i mean to say that Christians are no different than other beings in that love is a two way street, it is not a one way give without a take. whilst that may be the ideal that is not the actuality, at least in my experience.

Offhand I'm not with you, unless you mean agape, caritas, eros, philia?

yes. i'm often told that my point wasn't made because the poster was actually meaning one of those other understandings of the term 'love' yet didn't specify.

Can I ask something else, a complete aside?

Does your Tradition (or rather how does your Tradition) hold a view of any internal relationship between Buddha, Dharma and Sangha ... as a mode of being (if that applies) ... perhaps I should explain.

indeed, it does.

the Tathagata, the Pefectly Awakened One, the Buddha is the being which first turns the Wheel of Dharma in a world system. The Dharma is that which has been directly known and realized and taught to others, the Sangha, which then puts into practice the teachings and continues to instuct beings on the Dharma and Discipline.

that's a bit of a paraphrase but i could get the Sutta if you thought it apt.

sorry.. i'm a bit sad and tired this evening so i'm not quite on my game, so to speak.

metta,

~v

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by bob x

"That great cloud rains down on all whether their nature is superior or inferior. The light of the sun and the moon illuminates the whole world, both him who does well and him who does ill, both him who stands high and him who stands low." (Sadharmapundarika Sutra 5)

"Your father in heaven makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous." (Matt. 5:45)

the chance that Jesus had heard the older text is quite good.

Sorry to butt in where I probably don't belong...

Not to discount whatsoever from the comment about King Ashoka...

But the quote from Matthew sounds remarkably like a passage from Solomon, most likely Ecclesiastes:

Ecclesiastes 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

Ecclesiastes 9:1 For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them.

Ecclesiastes 9:2 All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath.

Ecclesiastes 9:3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

Ecclesiastes 9:4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

But then I would think it hardly a surprise that Jesus should adopt and adapt a Jewish teaching...

Which suggests the question of whether or not the Buddhist teaching was borrowed from the Jews?

[marmalade]

Relating back to the OP, here are some links to info on Acharya's site:

Life of Buddha

Truth Be Known Nation :: View topic - Buddha did have a "virgin birth"

Truth Be Known Nation :: View topic - "Beddru is Beddou is Buddha"

I'm just linking it for anyone who is interested. Acharya's second book goes into the correlations in much more depth. I have this book if anyone has any questions, but otherwise I'm not in much of a mood to debate any of it in detail. I feel no need to defend her work because I think she explains herself just fine. If you have a real need to question her work, you can go to her forum. She often replies to posts, and there are also several other people there who are knowledgeable about astrotheology.

She merely looks at it from the perspective of textual interpretation. This is interesting to an extent, but I'm more interested in the deeper meaning that the symbols point to. For this purpose, Campbell or Jung are more insightful. I also like Tom Harpur because he comes at it as a practicing Christian. His ideas have helped me to reconnect with my own sense of Christianity.

[Thomas]

Greetings Vajradhara —

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

it does?

Yes, it can.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

it seems to strongly suggest that humans, like everything else, are impermanent not eternal, to my way of thinking at any rate.

That would involve a more precise definition of 'human' ... but yes ... any and every created nature is, by virtue of that fact, impermanent. The impermanent can engage with the eternal, however.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

you will not be surprised to learn that my view is not based upon Greeks nor their particular philosophical postulates and that such concepts as "the True" and "The Real" are fairly nonesensical to beings outside of this paradigm.

OK. Each to his own.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

though i'm not terribly versed in Greek thought weren't these some of Aristotles ideas.. some sort of Master Archetype from which manifestations were only copies or shadows?

It's somewhat more involved than that, and somewhere more evolved than that. The history of the Western philosophical tradition continues to evolve.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

given the way in which you've capitalized presence i have the feeling that we are not using this term in the same way and i'm not sure what you mean.

Probably not. I suppose the difference is that the capitalised refers to that which is not subject to change.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

so we could reasonably detect this change with medical instrumentation?

Again, not quite so simple. Medical instrumentation can detect changes in state in meditation, prayer, etc. as they can in any state, and in the same way that I can observe changes in my daughter, who is currently enamoured of a young man ... What they cannot detect is enlightenment as such. All I am saying is that the one effects the other. Science then assumes that if they can re