Simlarities: Buddhism and Christianity

[dilloduck]

I think that people choose one path over another based on what those paths offer to the individual. Jesus may have stated that life is suffering, (show me the passage) but it took the Buddha's way of putting it for me to accept that. I spent alot of time comparing religious paths before settling into Buddhism. It occurred for me gradually. I started to meditate and saw some progress. This encouraged me to keep going.

All I heard about in Christianity was sin and redemption. Those terms didn't work for me, and the Bible didn't speak to me much. The best I ever got to understand the deeper meaning of Christian teachings was in the book, I AM THE LIFE, by Murdo MacDonald Bayne. Bayne was a Christian minister who studied Buddhism in Tibet. I started out studying his books and he bridged Christian and Buddhist mysticism for me. Once I started to attend silent Buddhist meditation retreats I gradually shifted over to just Buddhist teachings. I still find some teachings of Jesus to be quite beautful and inspiring. I just don't believe in a Creator God or a redeemer. The Buddha taught that we have to do the work ourselves. No one can take your karma away from you. We have to free ourselves.

Why does Buddha bother to tell people that they have to do the work themselves ? Why does Buddha find it necessary to describe the path to enlightenment ? He actually operates much the same way as Jesus did. He guides.

The Buddha did not teach for quite some time after his enlightenment. He had the same questions you have. The difference between Buddha and Christ is that people think that Jesus was God and man. The Buddha was a man, but one who awakened. You're correct. He is a guide.

The Buddha doesn't tell us to take everything on faith. He stresses an empirical approach. In other words, try it, and see if it's true or not. Only follow what is true.

If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

Jesus

 

[Sky Dancer]

I fully understand what you think on the topic but it would seem to me that the DL is speaking of a specific point where the Buddhist path and the Christian path MUST diverge.
Remember---he claims that Christians and Buddhists can walk the same path for awhile. The decision does not have to be made from the very start.

I'll look for some verses for you.

Thanks. Verses would be good.

Here is His Holiness again:

"To sum up all that we've discussed, I feel there is tremendous convergence and a potential for mutual enrichment through dialogue between the Buddhist and Christian tradition, especially in the areas of ethics and spiritual practice, such as the practices of compassion, love, meditation, and the enhancement of tolerance. And I feel that this dialogue could go very far and reach a deep level of understanding. But when it comes to a philosophical or metaphysical dialogue I feel that we must part company. The entire Buddhist worldview is based on a philosophical standpoint in which the central thought is the principle of interdependence, how all things and events come into being purely as a result of interaction between causes and conditions. Within that philosophical worldview it is impossible to have any room for an atemporal, eternal, absolute truth. Nor is it possible to accommodate the concept of a divine Creation. Similarly, for a Christian whose entire metaphysical worldview is based in belief in the Creation and a divine Creator, the idea that all things and events arise out of mere interaction between causes and conditinos has no place within that worldview. So in the realm of metaphysics it becomes problematic at a certain point, and the two traditions must diverge." The author of this quote?: His Holiness the Dalai Lama in _The Good Heart_ (Wisdom, 1996), 81-82.

The Dalai Lama then went on to state, "The conceptions of God and Creation are a point of departure between Buddhists and Christians" , and that "If you are Christian it is better to develop spiritually within your religion and be a genuine, good Christian. If you are a Buddhist, be a genuine Buddhist" . He then used illustrated his feelings here by quoting a Tibetan expression, which says, "Don't try to put a yak's head on a sheep's body" .

Apparently the Dalai Lama is convinced that there is no common path for all men because the thinks he understands them all and approaches the problem by simply looking at dogma.

I don't agree with that view. The Dalai Lama is not just immersed in dogma. He clearly sees where the path of Christianity and the path of Buddhism must diverge. He is deeply respectful of Christianity. It is rare to find Christians as respectful of Buddhism.

 

[dilloduck]

Thanks. Verses would be good.

Here is His Holiness again:

"To sum up all that we've discussed, I feel there is tremendous convergence and a potential for mutual enrichment through dialogue between the Buddhist and Christian tradition, especially in the areas of ethics and spiritual practice, such as the practices of compassion, love, meditation, and the enhancement of tolerance. And I feel that this dialogue could go very far and reach a deep level of understanding. But when it comes to a philosophical or metaphysical dialogue I feel that we must part company. The entire Buddhist worldview is based on a philosophical standpoint in which the central thought is the principle of interdependence, how all things and events come into being purely as a result of interaction between causes and conditions. Within that philosophical worldview it is impossible to have any room for an atemporal, eternal, absolute truth. Nor is it possible to accommodate the concept of a divine Creation. Similarly, for a Christian whose entire metaphysical worldview is based in belief in the Creation and a divine Creator, the idea that all things and events arise out of mere interaction between causes and conditinos has no place within that worldview. So in the realm of metaphysics it becomes problematic at a certain point, and the two traditions must diverge." The author of this quote?: His Holiness the Dalai Lama in _The Good Heart_ (Wisdom, 1996), 81-82.

The Dalai Lama then went on to state, "The conceptions of God and Creation are a point of departure between Buddhists and Christians" , and that "If you are Christian it is better to develop spiritually within your religion and be a genuine, good Christian. If you are a Buddhist, be a genuine Buddhist" . He then used illustrated his feelings here by quoting a Tibetan expression, which says, "Don't try to put a yak's head on a sheep's body" .

Apparently the Dalai Lama is convinced that there is no common path for all men because the thinks he understands them all and approaches the problem by simply looking at dogma.

I don't agree with that view. The Dalai Lama is not just immersed in dogma.

So by what means has he determined how a Christian believes ?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Apparently the Dalai Lama is convinced that there is no common path for all men because the thinks he understands them all and approaches the problem by simply looking at dogma.

I don't agree with that view. The Dalai Lama is not just immersed in dogma.

So by what means has he determined how a Christian believes ?

By talking to Christians and studying their texts. Let me ask you this dillo. Do Christians believe in a Creator God and Jesus Christ as redeemer/savior? Do Christians believe in an eternal afterlife? If yes, these beliefs diverge from Buddhism.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't agree with that view. The Dalai Lama is not just immersed in dogma.

So by what means has he determined how a Christian believes ?

Let me ask you this dillo. Do Christians believe in a Creator God and Jesus Christ as redeemer/savior?

yes---in a zillion different ways.

"I am with you always, until the end of the world"

Jesus

 

[dilloduck]

I don't agree with that view. The Dalai Lama is not just immersed in dogma.

So by what means has he determined how a Christian believes ?

By talking to Christians and studying their texts. Let me ask you this dillo. Do Christians believe in a Creator God and Jesus Christ as redeemer/savior? Do Christians believe in an eternal afterlife? If yes, these beliefs diverge from Buddhism.

What's the REAL difference between after lives and incarnations ?

 

[Sky Dancer]

So by what means has he determined how a Christian believes ?

Let me ask you this dillo. Do Christians believe in a Creator God and Jesus Christ as redeemer/savior?

yes---in a zillion different ways.

"I am with you always, until the end of the world"

Jesus

The Buddha didn't say "I am with you always." The Buddha said when he was dying "be a lamp unto yourself."

 

[dilloduck]

Let me ask you this dillo. Do Christians believe in a Creator God and Jesus Christ as redeemer/savior?

yes---in a zillion different ways.

"I am with you always, until the end of the world"

Jesus

The Buddha didn't say "I am with you always." He said when he died "be a lamp unto yourself."

which is quite the riddle. Why should anyone listen to someone who tells them "listen to yourself"

 

[Sky Dancer]

yes---in a zillion different ways.




Jesus

The Buddha didn't say "I am with you always." He said when he died "be a lamp unto yourself."

which is quite the riddle. Why should anyone listen to someone who tells them "listen to yourself"

It doesn't mean 'listen to yourself' it means (more or less) practice diligently. It's up to you. I ain't saving you.

One of his students asked Buddha, "Are you the messiah?"
"No", answered Buddha.
"Then are you a healer?"
"No", Buddha replied.
"Then are you a teacher?" the student persisted.
"No, I am not a teacher."
"Then what are you?" asked the student, exasperated.
"I am awake", Buddha replied.

 

[dilloduck]

The Buddha didn't say "I am with you always." He said when he died "be a lamp unto yourself."

which is quite the riddle. Why should anyone listen to someone who tells them "listen to yourself"

It doesn't mean 'listen to yourself' it means practice diligently. It's up to you. I ain't saving you.

"be a lamp unto yourself" means to practice dilligently ? Odd but whatever.

Jesus certainly didn't inform people that they could just hang out and wait to be saved. He said there is a path to follow, similar to what Buddha says.

 

[Sky Dancer]

which is quite the riddle. Why should anyone listen to someone who tells them "listen to yourself"

It doesn't mean 'listen to yourself' it means practice diligently. It's up to you. I ain't saving you.

"be a lamp unto yourself" means to practice dilligently ? Odd but whatever.

Jesus certainly didn't inform people that they could just hang out and wait to be saved. He said there is a path to follow, similar to what Buddha says.

Excellent. We've established places where Christianity and Buddhism are simliar and a few places where they differ. There are a number of ways to look at the Buddha's dying words:

Be a lamp unto yourself. Be a teacher unto yourself. Sit down and pay attention to your own experience. Check it out for yourself. Don’t listen to anyone else telling you the way things are. See what your actual experience is. Trust your own experience.

 

[dilloduck]

It doesn't mean 'listen to yourself' it means practice diligently. It's up to you. I ain't saving you.

"be a lamp unto yourself" means to practice dilligently ? Odd but whatever.

Jesus certainly didn't inform people that they could just hang out and wait to be saved. He said there is a path to follow, similar to what Buddha says.

Excellent. We've established places where Christianity and Buddhism are simliar and a few places where they differ.

I see no difference

 

[Sky Dancer]

"be a lamp unto yourself" means to practice dilligently ? Odd but whatever.

Jesus certainly didn't inform people that they could just hang out and wait to be saved. He said there is a path to follow, similar to what Buddha says.

Excellent. We've established places where Christianity and Buddhism are simliar and a few places where they differ.

I see no difference

That's great. In essence, there is no difference. In believing in a Creator God there is.

It depends on how you experience what God is. If God is like this:

"Indescrible, inconceivable, and inexpressible"

That's how Buddhists describe 'the perfection of sublime knowing unborn and unceasing, the very nature of space. It is realm of your own self-knowing timeless awareness. I pay homage to the 'mother of the Buddha of the three times'.

(From the Prajnaparamita)

 

[dilloduck]

Excellent. We've established places where Christianity and Buddhism are simliar and a few places where they differ.

I see no difference

That's great. In essence, there is no difference. In believing in a Creator God there is.

It depends on how you experience what God is. If God is like this:

"Indescrible, inconceivable, and inexpressible"

That's how Buddhists describe 'the perfection of sublime knowing unborn and unceasing, the very nature of space. It is realm of your own self-knowing timeless awareness. I pay homage to the 'mother of the Buddha of the three times'.

(From the Prajnaparamita)

why go for anything other than essence ?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I see no difference

That's great. In essence, there is no difference. In believing in a Creator God there is.

It depends on how you experience what God is. If God is like this:

"Indescrible, inconceivable, and inexpressible"

That's how Buddhists describe 'the perfection of sublime knowing unborn and unceasing, the very nature of space. It is realm of your own self-knowing timeless awareness. I pay homage to the 'mother of the Buddha of the three times'.

(From the Prajnaparamita)

why go for anything other than essence ?

That's deep. If you can understand essence, that's the place to abide from moment to moment. When essence is obscured then one needs methods to uncover the essence, or truth.

Different teachings take us to the essence. For some, Jesus words take us to the essence very directly. for others, it's the Quran or Torah. IMO we have to go with what works for each of us.

But if you find the heart essence, ah. That is truly sublime.

 

[dilloduck]

That's great. In essence, there is no difference. In believing in a Creator God there is.

It depends on how you experience what God is. If God is like this:

"Indescrible, inconceivable, and inexpressible"

That's how Buddhists describe 'the perfection of sublime knowing unborn and unceasing, the very nature of space. It is realm of your own self-knowing timeless awareness. I pay homage to the 'mother of the Buddha of the three times'.

(From the Prajnaparamita)

why go for anything other than essence ?

That's deep. If you can understand essence, that's the place to abide from moment to moment. When essence is obscured then one needs methods to uncover the essence, or truth.

Different teachings take us to the essence. For some, Jesus words take us to the essence very directly. for others, it's the Quran or Torah. IMO we have to go with what works for each of us.

But if you find the heart essence, ah. That is truly sublime.

I can only experience essence. Knowing it would immediately dissolve it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

why go for anything other than essence ?

That's deep. If you can understand essence, that's the place to abide from moment to moment. When essence is obscured then one needs methods to uncover the essence, or truth.

Different teachings take us to the essence. For some, Jesus words take us to the essence very directly. for others, it's the Quran or Torah. IMO we have to go with what works for each of us.

But if you find the heart essence, ah. That is truly sublime.

I can only experience essence. Knowing it would immediately dissolve it.

Both are possible to experience--essence and the knowing of it- moment to moment.

 

[dilloduck]

That's deep. If you can understand essence, that's the place to abide from moment to moment. When essence is obscured then one needs methods to uncover the essence, or truth.

Different teachings take us to the essence. For some, Jesus words take us to the essence very directly. for others, it's the Quran or Torah. IMO we have to go with what works for each of us.

But if you find the heart essence, ah. That is truly sublime.

I can only experience essence. Knowing it would immediately dissolve it.

Both are possible to experience--essence and the knowing of it- moment to moment.

cool

 

[Madeline]

My post was directed at Madeline and I positively encourage her to read more of the Bible

Why are you offended by her post? She expressed her opinion.

I'm not offended by her posts. She expressed an opinion that was inaccurate. Christianity and Buddhism both encourage people to speak love and not hate.

I apologize, dilloduck. All's that came to mind for me was "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor", and so I was trying to say I could think of no christian principle that directs a person to speak with kindness. My experience is with Catholicism, and the Bible was not part of my Religious Instruction. Sitting here and pondering the Baltimore Cathecism, I still cannot think of anything comparable to what Care4all quoted....yet, it is such an obvious need.

 

[Madeline]

both religions for some reason, state that one must choose a path....and in Christianity, warning is given to be careful because the path is narrow...

Could be a tactic of the clergy of these religions to keep people coming back to their church/temple...someday, I HOPE to find out...if I am worthy of such information! (the church might say no, but I will leave that up to our Judge, when the day comes)

there are too many similarities among many of the religions of the world that I can't see how they are all not coming from the same root source tens of thousands of years ago...but with travel and dispersing, the oral legends lost some or were manipulated somehow....?

My guess is that the great minds all settled on certain similar principles as necessary for attaining a degree of spiritual growth, regardless of the tenets of their religious beliefs. To me, it seems that the Golden Rule is about empathy and compassion, and the very essence of being fully human must at least include that.