Buddhist Compassion :: Christian Love

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Thomas

As and when a Buddhist speaks of compassion, he treats it merely as an 'upaya' – 'an expedient means... '

Hi,

Upaya is usually described as “skillful (as in beneficial) means”. What this actually is, will depend on what is required in any particular situation.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Thomas

There are a significant number of people who present Christianity and Budddhism as saying practically the same thing, which they do not, and that was what this post was intended to highlight.

If I am wrong, then I was hoping for a Buddhist to put me right ... Earle has offered his own distinctive and knowledgeable view ... and I think we find some common ground in apophatic and cataphatic spirituality (not to mention heroes in common) ... if I have offended, I apologise, but I make no bones in saying that if Theosophy makes as fast and loose with Buddhist doctrine as it does with Christian, then from where I choose to stand there is doubly no reason to continue the dialogue.

Thomas

Hi,

Is it not the case that there will be differences and similarities between the teachings, but that in dialogue people can appreciate the POV of others, learn a little and maybe see the commonalities that any "timeless" teachings are likely to share? And maybe help us all to get along a bit better than we are otherwise want to do.

s.

[China Cat Sunflower]

First, thanks Zag for the excellent post in response to my question. It's been some time since I read Alice Bailey. Thanks as well SG!

Paint me curious. It seems that what we hear a lot of is Christianity strained through Eastern thought, but I'm wondering what the reverse would be. What would Buddhism sound like strained through a Judeo-Christian seive?

Chris

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Paint me curious. It seems that what we hear a lot of is Christianity strained through Eastern thought, but I'm wondering what the reverse would be. What would Buddhism sound like strained through a Judeo-Christian seive?

Chris

I think that's what I do. (I have a Christian vocabulary, not a Buddhist one.) Thomas Merton might also be a good example of Eastern thought filtered through Christianity. I think Snoopy just started a thread for Thomas Merton quotes in the Alternative section.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I think Snoopy just started a thread for Thomas Merton quotes in the Alternative section.

Hi,

Oh yes. Specifically under Esoteric at the behest of Brian as he is considering setting up a sub forum of Mysticism.

s.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post and the question.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Thank you, Vajradhara.

This is from the quote I posted:
"... The question then is this: Is this selfless compassion equivalent to the Christian charity which the Word, upon becoming flesh, expressed upon the Cross at Calvary?

in short, no.

there are several reasons for this, depending on ones school of practice and their philosophical view. one of the reasons that these two things are not equivilent is that selfless compassion is something that all human beings, at the least, are able to cultivate and generate, the Word becoming flesh is a singular event in human history and is not duplicable.

As Buddhism believes neither in the existence of a loving and living God nor in a substantial self, so the compassion of a Bodhisattva cannot be accorded with any ontological reality. As and when a Buddhist speaks of compassion, he treats it merely as an 'upaya' – 'an expedient means... '

this is, essentially, correct.

each being, of course, responds to the teachings in the manner in which they are able, some beings are easily able to generate compassion and have more difficulty with generating Wisdom while for others the reverse is true and then you have folks like me that have a hard time with them both!

the Buddha likened his teachings to a raft, as has been explained previously. this raft is not something that is taken with us after we've crossed to the Other Shore. we leave it behind for others, perhaps, to find and make use of as well

That's the crux of it, I think - although Behind it I suppose is a perennial question with me, with regard to the 'self' – the ointology/eschatalogical horizon of the person is so obviously locatable in Christian doctrine, but I find myself on uncertain ground with regard to Buddhism ...

Pax,

Thomas

perhaps i can explain it in another manner...

the Buddha Dharma does not say that self does not exist rather it says that Self does not exist. so, what's the difference between these terms.. self is the relative aspect of being which interacts with sensory phenomena in a continually changing manner, it is never the "same" from moment to moment, like a moving river. Self is that aspect of being which is regarded as permenant, unchanging and static and it is this which Buddhism says does not exist. that our perceptions are not in accord with our experience is due to the effect of the ego upon the consciousness.

so... generally speaking, most beings have the view that Self or in our terms Atman, exists in an independent and permenant manner. as such, most Buddhists go on about non-Self or Anatman... however, nothing is cut and dry in Buddha Dharma.

when beings that held the view that there was no Self wanted to know why they should behave in a moral or ethical manner, since there were no repercussions, the Buddha taught that there self did, indeed, exist though not in a permenant way.

this is, in my view, a point that is either not understood or not explained well enough in the Buddhist interfaith dialog, in my view.

*****

Generally...

it is my view that humanity has a wide array of mental dispositions and spiritual need and with that view in mind i am loath to try to make a "one world religion" by amalgamization of various traditions into one. as the beings are diverse they need a diverse means of spiritual practice. my view is that the garden of human spiritual practice is more beautiful where there are many different flowers growing and blooming rather than one flower.

metta,

~v

[Thomas]

Benedicimus te, Vajradhara.

Thank you for the thoughtful and considered post.

this is, in my view, a point that is either not understood or not explained well enough in the Buddhist interfaith dialog, in my view.

I fear that too often the desire is to 'explain' or 'equate' difficult and sometimes unique doctrines leads to unsatisfactory compromise.

i am loath to try to make a "one world religion" by amalgamization of various traditions into one.

Indeed so.

Pax vobiscum,

Thomas

[plurplex]

Paladin: Perhaps, then according your model, perception and belief have nothing to do with absolute reality.
Thomas: Oooh, there's a discussion! How much does perception and belief determine reality?
There definitely is a discussion.
I often contemplate the notions of perspectivism and the 'metaphysical' law of relativity. As Albert Einstein wrote: I know that I do not know, i believe that in the idea of the grand architect / god, what we comprehend as god are sub-divisions of the ultimate/grand/god. We only know what we think we know, yet all that we know, has in it truth.

nice thread

[marcoav]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

when beings that held the view that there was no Self wanted to know why they should behave in a moral or ethical manner, since there were no repercussions, the Buddha taught that there self did, indeed, exist though not in a permenant way.

this is, in my view, a point that is either not understood or not explained well enough in the Buddhist interfaith dialog, in my view.

Hi. I step in since it is not the first time this issue comes into my 'reading' path. What if instead of regarding the above conception on the [higher or inner] Self (I, Ego, Divine Spark, [threefold] Spirit, God within, ...) as a possible unclear transmission from the Spiritual Teacher Gautama Buddha or a possible misunderstanding in the reception by his pupils, we look at it from another angle?: like in our common shcools, let us imagine that a Teacher knows perfectly well the nature of an advanced theme but he also knows the students aren't yet ready to grasp the meaning: Wouldn't he in first place teach his students the basics necessary to a future understanding, being silent at that time about the more advanced concepts?

Comes to my mind Paul of Tarsus' metaphor on this transmission and learning process (not really that different from the process of education occurring from primary/basic school to the universaty in the learning development of the individual):

« For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. » Hebrews 5:12-14

May you please share you thought on this aspect? Thank you.

[arthra]

For myself as a Baha'i I can see the oneness of Christianity and Buddhism when it comes to the concept of sacrifice for others..

The Jataka tales are replete with the ideal of self sacrifice..

The Bodhisattwa ideal is self sacrificing and one can I think easily see the sacrifice of Jesus in a similar way.. Jesus to some could be a Bodhisattwa.. We Baha'is accept both the Buddha and Jesus as Manifestations of God and in a sense the concept is similar to the perspective of there being many Buddhas..

"There have been many Buddhas before me and will be many Buddhas in the future,"

There's also a Christian legend of Saint Iosaphat and Barlaam that is today acknowledged to be pretty much the story of the Buddha imported into a Christian legend..

See:

Barlaam and Josaphat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The work of Paul Carus in his "the Gospel of Buddha" also resonates for me still..

- Art

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Upaya is usually described as “skillful (as in beneficial) means”. What this actually is, will depend on what is required in any particular situation.

Hi,

In one discussion I saw the term “skillful" was said to denote wholesome. I thought that shed a new light on things.