Buddhism and Christianity

[Xavier Breath]

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.

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.

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]

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.

... 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.

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

do you mean in an ideal sense?

No. In a real sense.

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]

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.

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...

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.

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.

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]

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 —

please bear with me here.

And me likewise ...

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 ...

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 ...

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

"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 —

it does?

Yes, it can.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 replicate the conditions from the ground up, one can bring about the higher, which is of course nonsense.

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.

interdependent co-arising.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ...

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.

That's a shame. I have experienced this 'giving without condition', and not just in Christians.

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.

Thanks for that. I can see correspondences to Genesis.

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

Then I pray indeed that peace be with you. I hope it is a transient condition.

Pax tecum,

Thomas

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

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…

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]

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]

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.

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".

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]

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.

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