Buddhism and Christianity

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Greetings Vajradhara —


Yes, it can.

i am unaware of any aspect of reality which is unchanging, static and eternal. i realize that this is the view of most monotheistic beings i just happen to believe that intersubjective evidence demonstrates that such is not the case.

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.

i don't agree that there is anything eternal let alone some aspect of being or deity with which another can interact.

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

i figured as much.

do you suppose that you could explain or demonstrate that there is an aspect of human beings that is eternal? in the entire history of Buddhism we have never found such and whilst it may be said that Buddha wasn't aware of the teachings of the Semetic traditions that should not lead a being to the conclusion that Buddha was unaware of eternalist views. in point of fact an eternalist view is considered to be Wrong View.

Again, not quite so simple.

you indicated that the change was physical in some dimension and i'm curious if we can quantify that phyiscal aspect.

Science then assumes that if they can replicate the conditions from the ground up, one can bring about the higher, which is of course nonsense.

Science assumes this?

come now, Thomas, you know that Science is a discipline and assumes no such thing. Scientists may but Christianity and Christians are not the same so there is no reason to equivocate Science and Scientists, in my estimation.

There are certain phenomena within the Christian Tradition that point to a profound level of change. The incorruptibility of some of our saints, for example.

as far as i know all religious traditions postulate something along these lines.. the changed lives of the followers is evidence of the efficacy of the path but really there is no way for another being to know this.

We would argue that such is still within the realm of contingency. There is that which is not subject to change, which does not arise, nor pass away. Arising and passing are within a spatio-temporal, or cosmological, environment. We hold there is a metacosm which is not subject to temporality.

would you agree that every phenomena on this side of the event horizon of the start of this universe is subject to change and impermanent?

i don't know what "metacosm" means. you are indicating that there is a universe, like this one, but somehow out of synch? is that different than the postulates that there are myriad universes that differ only in the position of one electron, one neutron, which are found in the field of Quantum Mechanics?

I am saying that a human being can become aware of beingness of his or her nature, which leads him or her to question the nature of being ... and the implication of beingness as such of which their (and every) nature is a part.

ah.. i see.

i don't believe the monism has much foundation though i do agree that it is a superior view than dualism.

Ontologically one can posit that which conditions, but which is itself not conditioned. This being is non-changing. This is beyond the soul, but the soul is the medium of communion with this order of being. The soul itself, an arising/created being, is subject to change.

how can one posit such a thing with no evidence? what being is non-changing?

as a religious belief i have no issues with it but as a statement regarding the ontological universe then it isn't about belief but about intersubjective evidence, as near as i can tell.

I would ask what determines right cause and right condition ... this would imply criteria of some sort?

in this case the terms simply mean that with the proper conditions are there a being will ripen in certan ways.. for instance, the right conditions for a plant to bloom are soil, water and sunlight. lacking any of these the plant does not bloom.

so for beings to Awaken and then begin the process of Liberation the proper conditions must come about, and they could be anything as it is specific to the individual being.

The heart is a muscle, but the term is used in a far wider context ... 'the heart of the sun', 'the heart of the matter', 'in my heart of hearts' ... the essential core of something its its heart. It's just an extension of the metaphor. When I tell my love it is with all my heart, I do not mean it is limited to the cardiac muscle ...

in China the "essential core of something" is termed "the eye of the work".

leaving aside the usage of the metaphor we are in agreement that the heart is a muscle which pumps blood throughout the human body, correct?

all conditions are transient, both positive and negative so this is no different. it's the going through which can be difficult.

metta,

~v

[Snoopy]

Hi Path,

I like reading your posts; your open-mindedness and inclusiveness shines through. I echo your point about all our posts being essentially implicitly preceded by “in my opinion” without always clunkily stating it. Each of us can only posit our own understanding from our own unique viewpoint and knowledge base, whether we feel we follow no path, several or one very specific one. None has perfect and complete knowledge and understanding (IMO!). Not that it really matters but I agree with much of what you say (so take that as read!). (Speaking not as a paid up Buddhist) one or two thoughts occur to me here…

Originally Posted by path_of_one

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)

I like the term nontheistic!

and the earth was never perfect.

The “concern” is with reality and our perception / delusional status. The earth / universe is simply as it is; how we perceive it is another matter. “Perfect” / imperfect are merely subjective opinions (concepts) that people may or may not hold, but this has nothing to do with how the earth really is (i.e. reality)

Suffering is seen as a state that is inherent to living, so the antidote to suffering is ending one's existence.

This could seem nihilistic and a call to suicide, which I’m sure you don’t mean. In “source” Buddhism (Theravadan) I would think you mean end the cycle of rebirth by breaking the 12 link chain (loop) of co-dependent arising.

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.

Love in a detached way sounds a bit cold to me! Compassionate action, yet knowing that ultimately all is empty of self-existence and so cannot be clung to might be a bit less cold? But probably more confusing! Maybe I need more coffee! Personally I would say yes we are not about to be saved by any external agent, but this need not mean God disappears. It can simply mean a different idea of what the concept “God” refers to.

s.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi Path,

I like reading your posts; your open-mindedness and inclusiveness shines through. I echo your point about all our posts being essentially implicitly preceded by “in my opinion” without always clunkily stating it. Each of us can only posit our own understanding from our own unique viewpoint and knowledge base, whether we feel we follow no path, several or one very specific one. None has perfect and complete knowledge and understanding (IMO!). Not that it really matters but I agree with much of what you say (so take that as read!). (Speaking not as a paid up Buddhist) one or two thoughts occur to me here…

Thanks. I try to be as open-minded and inclusive as possible. After all, I'm just one of humanity trying to wade through a lot of complicated questions! I figure I can learn a lot from others as they work on their paths too.

I like the term nontheistic!

I think that is more apt a description. Some Buddhists don't believe in gods at all, while others just think if they exist, they have their own liberation to work out and have not much to do with one's own journey.

The “concern” is with reality and our perception / delusional status. The earth / universe is simply as it is; how we perceive it is another matter. “Perfect” / imperfect are merely subjective opinions (concepts) that people may or may not hold, but this has nothing to do with how the earth really is (i.e. reality)

Thanks- I think this is a very good explanation to add. Incidentally, this is how I see the earth/universe as well. But then, I am an odd sort of Christian. I don't buy into original sin, or that the earth is in a "fallen" state, and these sorts of things. I do believe people sin (make mistakes, err, act unethically) and this has consequences, and hope that people and other sentient beings will journey to become perfected beings (i.e., without blemish, mistakes, unethical behavior). But I don't believe the earth or nature as a whole is anything but what it is, and we can choose to look at it in any number of ways. I choose to see nature as leading to life, and evidence of God's Divine Plan which leads inevitably toward Creation. Even destruction leads to new life, dyamism and change. And these things are good and beautiful. I believe sentient beings should work toward being aligned and harmonious with the Divine/God's will, so that rather than cause more suffering, we are focused on renewing life and love in each other and the earth.

This could seem nihilistic and a call to suicide, which I’m sure you don’t mean. In “source” Buddhism (Theravadan) I would think you mean end the cycle of rebirth by breaking the 12 link chain (loop) of co-dependent arising.

Yes, this is why I say "end existence" rather than "end life." Of course, ending one's life doesn't end one's existence. On the contrary, I think it probably just delays one's progress and mucks things up by piling on more emotional and spiritual baggage.

There are many similarities between my own beliefs and Buddhism, but this is a break in those similarities. I don't believe the answer is in ending one's existence, necessarily. Because I believe in God (as All, beyond All), I think our journey is to reunite with God and all other sentient beings, to become perfected in our love and to end suffering in that way. The answer, for me, is that when all beings are reunited with God, then everyone will see the universe as it is, and suffering will not exist because we will all see our own role in creating ever more light and love in unison with God. We will each of us fulfill our God-given unique purpose, which is to love in our own unique way the rest of what is really God's own body. It is to give our being wholeheartedly to Being itself.

Love in a detached way sounds a bit cold to me! Compassionate action, yet knowing that ultimately all is empty of self-existence and so cannot be clung to might be a bit less cold? But probably more confusing!

I couldn't find a warm way to express what I was saying- detachment combined with loving compassion. Incidentally, here is another parallel to my own beliefs. I believe we ought to end attachment as well, but not because beings are empty of self-existence. I believe beings are created as a unique thought/art-form of God, and each carries within it the spark of Light that is from God Itself. So, far from empty, beings are actually full of Light and Love and indeed... God (at least in my opinion LOL ).

The reason we must end attachment, for me, is not simply to end our suffering (though it helps) and it doesn't mean we can't love personally and passionately. It is that we must give up all that binds ourselves to a self-centered place. Give up our desires- our desires for an afterlife that is a certain way, or a here-and-now life that is a certain way, for material things, for even spiritual experiences and feelings. I believe the goal is to die to self, so that one might become more filled with God. It doesn't mean one should become a drone; each of us is unique in how God fills us. But we should let go of our own ideas as permanent, real spiritual things- open to God's insight. We should let go of our desires for heaven, our fears of hell, of all ideas of any particular afterlife at all, trusting that God will put us exactly where we ought to be in order to bring us ever closer to It/Him/Her. We should let go of the idea that we own anything in this life, even our own life and time. For really, this is God's, and the best thing we can do (and what will end our suffering) is to give it back to God for safe-keeping and use, harboring a willingness to go where ever S/He/It bids us and to have what God gives us.

The more we remove our attachments from our lives (perhaps especially to who we think we are, defined by the things of this world), the more we become "not of this world," "the light of the world." We become filled with love and light, and not a temporary love that is emotional but rather a deeply passionate spiritual love that shows us the beauty and potential in all beings, indeed- that shows us the constant presence of God in All, and connects us to the mystery of God beyond All (the unfathomable, unknowable God that can only be experienced).

Of course, this is a work in progress for myself. I catch glimpses of it. Some days I am better and some days worse. Some days I worry, even though I know I shouldn't. But I have had a few brief moments of perfect bliss, of knowing what it feels like to be wholly reunited with God... and nothing else compares to this. It is worth any temporary feeling of sacrifice, which is really just my ego trying to clutch things that don't belong to it (including its own illusion of selfhood, when in fact I am really something/someone quite different).

Why is it like this? Why does God create all of us to go through this process? I have no idea. And I am not supposed to be attached to finding an answer.

I'm not sure I explained any of that adequately (almost certainly not) and I've probably just made a lot of Christians feel once more that I'm not Christian, but so be it. My path is what it is. To forsake what has been given to me and the moments I've experienced God would be to turn my back on the only truth I have known, which was evidenced by incredible peace, joy and love. I simply find it impossible to deny it.

Maybe I need more coffee! Personally I would say yes we are not about to be saved by any external agent, but this need not mean God disappears. It can simply mean a different idea of what the concept “God” refers to.

s.

I can't have coffee (allergies), but I do need some breakfast! LOL

I do and do not agree about salvation. I believe I have been saved by Christ, but that statement means something quite different to me than it does for many Christians. I believe God is the foundation upon which all beings derive their being-hood. God is the Being behind being itself.

I believe I am saved by grace (that God alone is responsible for my salvation), but I must choose to accept this gift and let it change me radically. Our salvation is evidenced by profound change in ourselves- becoming more like Christ- which is to say that we become more loving, more merciful, gentle, kind, humble, self-controlled... As we nurture the light of Christ within, which was always there but that we had not chosen to recognize previously, we fan this light into a fire that consumes us. And we die to self, to be born in Self (Christ). We find our true nature, which is in accord with God's will and is selfless and deeply, compassionately loving. This takes time and commitment. We are not saved by works, but if our salvation is to perfect us, we much commit ourselves to God. Indeed, we are committing ourselves to Christ within, to the light of God within. This takes some action on our part, some effort, and yet... even turning to this inner light is turning to God. No matter how much we think "we" are saving ourselves, we are only able in so far as we are embracing what God has already given us- namely, Itself- in us, around us, beyond us.

As a final aside, I believe people in many religions, from all over the world, are saved by Christ whether they realize it or not, and whether they believe in diety or not, and whether they believe in Christ or not. In fact, I suspect all are saved eventually. The evidence is in their transformation. If a being is becoming more like Christ, that being has been saved by Christ and is being guided by God along the path back to Him/Her/It. The being does not have to intellectually recognize this or practice the same religion. All it takes is willingness to let go of self and work toward love. Love, unconditional Love(which is love without attachment), is God. The narrow path is the path of Love, the path of finding Christ within. It isn't about religious affiliation or any group we create in human society. It is simply about letting go of self and learning to really love.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Thomas

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.

I haven't looked in the Indo-European dictionaries, but the root seems to be found in every group (English, to "care") so I would not think its proto-Indo-European status would be at all controversial.

Originally Posted by Thomas

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

Explain. I do not see anything "superficial" here, or anything " radically different".

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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

1. The specific mentions of the sun shining, and the rain falling, are a far more precise parallel. It is not unusual to find the same idea in different thinkers, but specific matches of word choices lessens the probability of independence considerably.
2. Solomon, of course, is not the author of Ecclesiastes, which is in a very late stage of Hebrew, just prior to its extinction as a spoken language; the book dates around the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. (The internal claim to be by "I, the son of David, who was king in Jerusalem" is problematic in the text; some old manuscripts have "I, David, who was king in Jerusalem" and Josephus seems to think it is by David, not by Solomon; my personal
speculation is that it could be by Zerubbabel, the Davidite heir who was briefly hailed as king after the return from Babylon, and then disappears.) It is certainly later than the Buddhist canon.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by bob x

I haven't looked in the Indo-European dictionaries, but the root seems to be found in every group (English, to "care") so I would not think its proto-Indo-European status would be at all controversial.

OK. I'm just conscious of false cognates, so always look for firm evidence.

Originally Posted by bob x

Explain. I do not see anything "superficial" here, or anything " radically different".

Christianity holds a personal relationship with God is central to its teachings, and this shapes its whole doctrine. Buddhism does not, in many ways it is the antithesis of this viewpoint. Those two views determine everything that follows in their respective doctrines. The meanings of words common to both have a particular reference in the lexicon of each. I would have thought that was obvious.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Greetings, Vajradhara

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i am unaware of any aspect of reality which is unchanging, static and eternal. i realize that this is the view of most monotheistic beings i just happen to believe that intersubjective evidence demonstrates that such is not the case.

I believe the intrasubjective evidence can signify that such is the case, the testimony in our Scriptures to the works as well as the words of Christ, for example. (Does intrasubjective evidence prove all that is contained in Buddhist doctrine?)

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

do you suppose that you could explain or demonstrate that there is an aspect of human beings that is eternal? in the entire history of Buddhism we have never found such and whilst it may be said that Buddha wasn't aware of the teachings of the Semetic traditions that should not lead a being to the conclusion that Buddha was unaware of eternalist views. in point of fact an eternalist view is considered to be Wrong View.

Here again we differ in our views. The person, whilst a created nature, can be incorporated into the eternal by grace. This is a view unique to Christian Revelation, so I would not expect to find evidence of such in Buddhism, nor indeed, do the commentaries of Buddhism carry any authority in that regard.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

you indicated that the change was physical in some dimension and i'm curious if we can quantify that phyiscal aspect.

Not really. Any physiological phenomena will have its origin in the physical domain. Its cause might be otherwise, but not in any sense that can be quantified.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

... there is no reason to equivocate Science and Scientists, in my estimation.

A valid point. I should not have made it so exclusive. Rather I should have said this is the materialist/consumerist view that carries a lot of weight in the West, with (not all) scientists, as well as in other quarters.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

... the changed lives of the followers is evidence of the efficacy of the path but really there is no way for another being to know this.

Does not a changed life itself count as evidence physically? Was not the Buddha recognised as a Buddha, or was his teaching accepted purely on faith? I would argue that each life is changed by those it comes into contact with, and they might experience the same (or similar) change in their own lives. How else then, would one be drawn to the Buddha, or even recognise him as such?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

would you agree that every phenomena on this side of the event horizon of the start of this universe is subject to change and impermanent?

Yes I would, even the universe itself. However I do not hold that 'the event horizon' is as closed or as impermeable as some might assume.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i don't know what "metacosm" means. you are indicating that there is a universe, like this one, but somehow out of synch? is that different than the postulates that there are myriad universes that differ only in the position of one electron, one neutron, which are found in the field of Quantum Mechanics?

No, that is a qualitative difference, if such exist then they are essentially the same, they are replications, with variation, of the same thing. By metacosm I could say that which transcends the 'event horizon' of the material order. This universe is finite, which is a mode of manifestation of the infinite.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i don't believe the monism has much foundation though i do agree that it is a superior view than dualism.

The view is neither monostic nor dualistic — although there are elements of both implied by certain doctrinal expressions. Each can only be properly understood in the light of the other however, and the both can only properly co-exist in the light of the Doctrine of the Trinity. I had always assumed Buddhism was a monism.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

how can one posit such a thing with no evidence? what being is non-changing?

Are there not certain statements in Buddhism, for which there is no empirical evidence?
In my case, Christian Revelation is the evidence.

Thomas

[marmalade]

There are traditions in Buddhism where Buddhas are treated as other even though this isn't the ultimate aim. And some Christian mystics have also sought an aim beyond a personal relationship to God. There is much variation of belief and practice within both Buddhism and Christianity. To be accurate, we'd need to reference specific traditions and and quote the words of specific people within those traditions.

I could use the Christianity I was raised in as an example of a very different tradition, but I've found that many conservative Christians have very narrow definitions of what is deemed genuine 'Christianity'. I don't know what genuine Christianity may be, but I do know that Christians disagree with eachother almost as much as they disagree with other religions. Christians were disagreeing with eachother even in the early centuries of Christian sectarianism.

I don't know the history of Buddhism very well, but I get the sense that a wide variety of opinions can also be found in its various traditions.

Its difficult to consider what the parallels might be between Buddhism and Christianity. There are many reasons for this. However, a major contributing factor is that its hard enough to find the parallels between the disparate traditions within both traditions. For instance, Christians describe God in so many ways that if they weren't using the same word, you wouldn't even know they were speaking of the same thing.

I don't mean any of this in a disparaging way. I'm starting to come around to considering the label of Christian to describe my own experience.

[Thomas]

As an adendum to my post, I would suggest that humanity is called, purely on a humanist level, to show love for one another, before any idea of a possible eschaton can reasonably be accepted.

Thomas

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I had always assumed Buddhism was a monism.

I think this is an example of what marmy is alluding to. There is no single authorative text in Buddhism and issues such as you mention here Thomas have been ones of great debate amongst different traditions I think (never mind individuals). Is Buddhism a monism? What might a Theravadan Buddhist say? What might a Mahayana Buddhist say? They could both provide "support" with textual references no doubt.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by marmalade

I don't know the history of Buddhism very well, but I get the sense that a wide variety of opinions can also be found in its various traditions.

Oh yes.

s.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I believe the intrasubjective evidence can signify that such is the case, the testimony in our Scriptures to the works as well as the words of Christ, for example. (Does intrasubjective evidence prove all that is contained in Buddhist doctrine?)

i hope you will not be offended when i mention that the Bible does not qualify as intersubjective evidence, even amongst Christians.

i did not ask you about providing evidence for all Christian doctrine, my question was quite specific, to answer your question, no, it does not provide intersubjective evidence for all it's doctrinal claims.

Here again we differ in our views. The person, whilst a created nature, can be incorporated into the eternal by grace. This is a view unique to Christian Revelation, so I would not expect to find evidence of such in Buddhism, nor indeed, do the commentaries of Buddhism carry any authority in that regard.

i did not suggest that you would find evidence there nor was it an authority. i stated that Buddhism, as a linga franca, has been exploring that theme for well over 3500 years now and found no evidence for such nor as modern science and i was asking for your evidence. i understand your belief, to a certain extent, and my question was not along those lines.

Not really. Any physiological phenomena will have its origin in the physical domain. Its cause might be otherwise, but not in any sense that can be quantified.

i'm not asking about the cause, i'm asking if the physiological change can be measured like the change in a beings brain during meditation, for example.

Does not a changed life itself count as evidence physically?

i cannot see how that it would it, the life has been changed, insofar as we can see the actions and hear the words but the cause of that change is not evidenced.

Was not the Buddha recognised as a Buddha, or was his teaching accepted purely on faith?

i don't understand the question.

there are plenty of the teachings of the Buddha that we have to accept on faith until we attain a certain level of meditative insight and the Buddha states that faith in the Dharma is a prequisit for setting out on the path for a great many beings, though that faith can be generated in several different ways.

I would argue that each life is changed by those it comes into contact with, and they might experience the same (or similar) change in their own lives. How else then, would one be drawn to the Buddha, or even recognise him as such?

the Buddha states that one should not recognize him as a Buddha until they have put the teachings into practice and verified for themselves if they are accurate or not.

there is a famous similie in the Tipitaka which goes into this in great depth using the image of a skilled elephant hunter tracking a large bull elephant in a forest. i could link that for you if you'd like, provided i can find it online.

No, that is a qualitative difference, if such exist then they are essentially the same, they are replications, with variation, of the same thing. By metacosm I could say that which transcends the 'event horizon' of the material order. This universe is finite, which is a mode of manifestation of the infinite.

i see.

The view is neither monostic nor dualistic — although there are elements of both implied by certain doctrinal expressions. Each can only be properly understood in the light of the other however, and the both can only properly co-exist in the light of the Doctrine of the Trinity. I had always assumed Buddhism was a monism.

many beings do.

so metacosm can only be understood in the christian doctrine of the trinity?

i hope you will agree that such a concept is then rather limited in its usefulness with communicating with other beings, yes?

Are there not certain statements in Buddhism, for which there is no empirical evidence?

i'm sorry for not being more clear. when i use the term "evidence" i mean to say "intersubjective evidence" rather than empirical evidence.

nevertheless, i'm unclear how this question is addressing my question to you.

In my case, Christian Revelation is the evidence.

are you a Biblical literalist, Thomas?

metta,

~v

[Thomas]

Greeting Vajradhara —

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i hope you will not be offended when i mention that the Bible does not qualify as intersubjective evidence, even amongst Christians.

Cound you explain 'intrasubjective'?

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

are you a Biblical literalist, Thomas?

There is a tradition of 'The Fourfold Sense of Scripture':
The literal
The tropological
The analogical
The anagogical

I try to follow all four, without any one occluding the other. The literal comes first, so in that sense i am a literalist, although I would qualify that term in current usage, as in the west 'literal', especially in scriptural terms, has become synonymous with a fistful of presuppositions and the suspension of the critical faculty.

Pax tecum,

Thomas

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Greeting Vajradhara —


Cound you explain 'intrasubjective'?

Main Entry: in·ter·sub·jec·tive Pronunciation: \ˌin-tər-səb-ˈjek-tiv\ Function: adjective Date: 1899 1 : involving or occurring between separate conscious minds <intersubjective communication> 2 : accessible to or capable of being established for two or more subjects : objective <intersubjective reality of the physical world>

here's a link, though it is rather long and indepth, relating the nature of this idea to evidence and so forth:

Evidence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

metta,

~v

[Netti-Netti]

I'm not sure how one could reconcile Buddhism and Christianity when Buddhism makes no place for a soul.

[Dah-veeth]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I'm not sure how one could reconcile Buddhism and Christianity when Buddhism makes no place for a soul.

I have no doubt the Buddha believed in the soul, and the Dalai Lama also clearly believes in souls... I've also seen ancient Buddhist paintings that depict sixteen heavens and sixteen hells. Think Dante!