Christian; finding truth in Buddhism

[Nicholas Weeks]

In both the Old & New testaments there is a verse about loving God with all one's strength, mind & soul. This can be practiced by anyone without paying much attention to doctrines or creeds. The Interfaith attitude puts more emphasis on practices or cultivation methods than doctrine.
Doctrinal debates & arguments are the main sources of enmity between & among faiths.

 

[KnowSelf]

They would be someone who does not believes Jesus can take away their sins, and does not think that belief in Jesus is necessary to enter Heaven, so I would not call that person a Christian, I would call them a non-Christian. The Christian faith is very clear that people who do not accept Jesus will go to hell.

Those who do not go through Jesus to know God also oppose Him. People really do change after transitioning from sinner to God's chosen one. When I changed over to Christianity I was free from sin and was no longer tempted by sin the degree I was before.

Buddhism puts me in touch with myself and whatever is. My internal and external feeds are endless and nonbinding. I live in time going forward never going always moving in each moment in time.
We are the same living in God as God is we are.

 

[Nasruddin]

In both the Old & New testaments there is a verse about loving God with all one's strength, mind & soul. This can be practiced by anyone without paying much attention to doctrines or creeds. The Interfaith attitude puts more emphasis on practices or cultivation methods than doctrine.
Doctrinal debates & arguments are the main sources of enmity between & among faiths.

Totally with you on that. I think that there are those whose personality or learning style is geared more toward a bottom up approach to spirituality. My wife is very much like that because she is an introverted thinker and a sensing more than an intuitive type. Of course, the downside is that there are those who get too hung up on the words and definitions. As you say, it causes enmity between people, and that is just the opposite of what all this is supposed to do.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We are the same living in God as God is we are.

That is hardly Christian (or Islam). This is blasphemy.

 

[RabbiO]

Those who do not go through Jesus to know God also oppose Him. People really do change after transitioning from sinner to God's chosen one.

Do you have any idea how truly offensive this remark is to a Jew or a Muslim or any other member of a non-Christian faith community?

 

[Thomas]

In both the Old & New testaments there is a verse about loving God with all one's strength, mind & soul. This can be practiced by anyone without paying much attention to doctrines or creeds.

But surely those verses constitute a doctrine and a creed and a dogma.

Separated from its Tradition, the concept of God becomes vague and abstract and open to all manner of interpretation as to render the original exhortation relatively meaningless. Take away the word 'God' and replace it with 'money' or 'self' ...

The Interfaith attitude puts more emphasis on practices or cultivation methods than doctrine.

Well ... Interfaith is not a faith in itself, nor a religion. It's not a practice, it's simply a dialogue. Attending various denominational events, paying attention to teachings, engaging in practices, can be a sign of good manners, of fellowship across boundaries, or simply tourism.

One can go broad, or one can go deep. It depends what one wants.

Doctrinal debates & arguments are the main sources of enmity between & among faiths.

At the level of the 'man in the street' yes, but thankfully he is not the mean nor measure of debate; it's often the empty vessels that make the most noise.

I'd say the main source of enmity in any human endeavour is fear, pride and an instinctive dislike and mistrust of 'the other'.

Thankfully, the reality of doctrinal debate is the dialogue that goes on between scholars and the leaders of various institutions. There is constant, healthy and fruitful dialogue and debate between, for example, the Catholic Church and the other great World Religions, and I'm sure the same can be said for but this of course rarely gets a mention precisely because there is no conflict, therefore no interest. People want conflict, that's why 'scandal sheet' newspapers and magazines are so successful.

Everyone has their creed, their doctrine, their dogmas. Whether they realise it or not is another issue.

 

[KnowSelf]

Do you have any idea how truly offensive this remark is to a Jew or a Muslim or any other member of a non-Christian faith community?

Please I am so sorry, I did not mean to offend anyone. The Bible speaks of the "Elect" regarding people who receive salvation. I used my personal experience to relate the change that took place in my life. It was not to omit changes that may occur in other belief systems, I can not share experiences I know nothing about.
Please except my apology, I hope you understand, I meant no harm.

 

[KnowSelf]

That is hardly Christian (or Islam). This is blasphemy.

I apologize to you as well. It is difficult not offending members based on cultural, religious and social differences. I am not a vicious person, nor do I go out of my way to offend forum members. Please take note to any person reading this if I offend any forum member please bring it to attention so I may correct any injustice I've caused you.

 

[KnowSelf]

That is hardly Christian (or Islam). This is blasphemy.

In response to your objection,"We are the same living in God as God is we are" How is this statement blasphemous? God is. in me as I am in God as collectively all exist in the concept of awesomeness that may be interpreted as God

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Please take note to any person reading this if I offend any forum member please bring it to attention so I may correct any injustice I've caused you.

Well, since you asked, "Those who do not go through Jesus to know God also oppose Him." is offensive to me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I apologize to you as well. It is difficult not offending members based on cultural, religious and social differences. I am not a vicious person, nor do I go out of my way to offend forum members. Please take note to any person reading this if I offend any forum member please bring it to attention so I may correct any injustice I've caused you.

Ah, KnowSelf. Do not apologise to me. Not needed. It is a discussion. Abrahamic religions are 'dualistic', therefore God cannot be in man, and man cannot be in God. These are two completely different entities. Hinduism also have the 'dualist' philosophy in Madhvacharya (1238–1317, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhvacharya) and he considered mixing of the two the ultimate sin.

 

[wil]

Please I am so sorry, I did not mean to offend anyone. The Bible speaks

This is the live andearn portion of the show....

There is NOTHING wrong with what you said should you be in your church (or the Christian section) BUT you are on an interfaith site in the Buddhist section!

Inside our prospective temples we argue the nuance of our belief and how it melds, (or doesn't) with other religions. Outside of these sections we ask others for their interpretation if what we see as a connection between beliefs.

Good fences make good neighbors....as long as there is an open gate and respect.

 

[KnowSelf]

Understood

 

[Nasruddin]

At the level of the 'man in the street' yes, but thankfully he is not the mean nor measure of debate; it's often the empty vessels that make the most noise.

I'd say the main source of enmity in any human endeavour is fear, pride and an instinctive dislike and mistrust of 'the other'.

Thankfully, the reality of doctrinal debate is the dialogue that goes on between scholars and the leaders of various institutions. There is constant, healthy and fruitful dialogue and debate between, for example, the Catholic Church and the other great World Religions, and I'm sure the same can be said for but this of course rarely gets a mention precisely because there is no conflict, therefore no interest. People want conflict, that's why 'scandal sheet' newspapers and magazines are so successful.

Everyone has their creed, their doctrine, their dogmas. Whether they realise it or not is another issue.

Unfortunately here in the States, we rarely if ever get to see the "...healthy and fruitful dialogue" part. Mostly, the public face of religion and debate is at a very low level, one that many turn away from. It often grieves me that what religion has to offer is discarded and forgotten while we rage at one another over the most egotistical crap.

Most people don't think about what they think about, it's much too difficult and often scary. The bravest souls I ever met are those who take that inner journey at the risk of facing themselves and their shadow.

 

[Nicholas Weeks]

Understood

Some folks are too delicate, touchy and easily offended, even eager to express outrage. Buddha gave, as usual, excellent advice in the Saw Sutta, here is a snip from it:

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves.

"Monks, if you should keep this instruction on the Parable of the Saw constantly in mind, do you see any mode of speech, subtle or gross, that you could not endure?"

"No, Lord."

"Therefore, monks, you should keep this instruction on the Parable of the Saw constantly in mind. That will conduce to your well-being and happiness for long indeed."

Even the Xtians have a verse about charity or love being tolerant & long suffering.

 

[KnowSelf]

Thank you, my personality prevents me to bestow negativity on anyone\anything. Perhaps my background automatically discerned my credibility amongst those not in my field of understanding.
So far I embrace the lectures of Alan Watts and only recently Jiddhu Krishnamurti.
I appreciate your kind words. I appreciate diverse thoughts and beliefs, however, instead of reacting to opposition we might try to explain why in my case the person’s were offended and hopefully lead to dialogue of discussion.
As far as I can tell we are all the same living and learning from each other.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are doing fine, KnowSelf, only do not take your foot off the ground.

 

[Cino]

The bravest souls I ever met are those who take that inner journey at the risk of facing themselves and their shadow.

Yes, though it's not the bravado kind of bravery that comes across.

What are you referring to by "at risk"? To me this sounds like there is only a certain probability of encountering oneself including undesired aspects of oneself on an inner journey, an "Avoid that street, the rest of the city is safe" kind of scenario?

But what else could one possibly find on an inner journey if not oneself? How would one even avoid it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

But what else could one possibly find on an inner journey if not oneself? How would one even avoid it?

That is simple, Cino. Walk on the dotted line, read your scriptures and worship your God or Allah. Who knows what one may encounter on an inner journey to oneself?

 

[Thomas]

Hi KnowSelf —

Just a fyi that I was neither surprised nor offended, but then I've been round here a while rolleyes.

It's interesting that the majority voice here is 'non-aligned' in terms of traditional denomination, and really those who are aligned either do not go on discussion forums, or do not attend this one. The majority are like yourself, who self-identify while choosing not to enter under the umbrella of a particular tradition.

The claims of offence, I am sure, were not meant unkindly, but rather, as a 'do you know you're standing on my foot' kind of thing? We all know you don't mean offence, but that should not stop us mentioning it when you do ... dialogue is a two-way thing. When we reach the point where everyone is patting everyone on the back, then IO becomes a glee club.

The 'big thing' for me is to speak out when the tradition is misrepresented. It's not personal, it's just factual. Sometimes it's done on purpose as a discreet means of spreading false information, sometimes the intent is malign. Most often it's simply unintentional ignorance. Often, most often, it's rebroadcasting stuff one's read on the internet. As I said before, people don't really think at all, they just react and respond.

Anyway, as a clarification, I'm offering a comment on your comments with regard to where your take on things differs from the convention, the responses then would be the dialogue between a Buddhist and a traditional Christian.

Those who do not go through Jesus to know God also oppose Him.
It's a bit more nuanced than that. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Luke 23:34.
There's a fantastic moment of psychological insight in a dream of a 5th century theologian along those lines, just how deeply that forgiveness runs.
John's gospel tells us the only unforgivable sin is that against the Holy Spirit – it's the rejection of the Love of God. If that is our choice, then God accords us the dignity of honouring that choice ...

On the other hand, those who actively opposed Jesus or oppressed those who were in their care, were in receipt of quite sharp, pointed criticism. He pulled no punches when faced with hypocrisy. It's evident He was far from easy, and a close reading of the gospels indicates being a close disciple was no easy ride. I'm sure at times He was a nightmare.

People really do change after transitioning from sinner to God's chosen one.
They find the strength to find themselves.

When I changed over to Christianity I was free from sin and was no longer tempted by sin the degree I was before.
Then that's a grace, and long may it continue, but it's not the same for everyone.

Buddhism puts me in touch with myself and whatever is.
I think I get you, but then Buddhism also declares that self as fleeting and illusory? St Augustine famously said "You know me better than I know myself"; Islam says "He is closer to me than my jugular vein"; Buddhism says there is no actual self, no soul. Ontologically, the two Traditions are incompatible.

We are the same living in God as God is we are.
Whoa , this needs some dissecting:

We are the same living in God
Same as what?

as God is we are
No, not at all — at face value this is blasphemy in the Abrahamic idea of God.

Famously Paul says: "For in him we live, and move, and are" citing the Cretan poet Epimenides (7/6thBC):
"But you are not dead: you live and abide forever,
For in you we live and move and have our being."
But we do do, we are contingent beings, dependent upon Him for our existence, whereas He is absolute, not contingent, and dependent on nothing. So in that sense we are not like Him at all, in fact it would be harder to be more unalike.

The Hynm of Colossians is a summation of a Christian metaphysic:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth...
all things were created by him and in him.
And he is before all, and by him all things consist...
who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead...
Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father, that all fulness should dwell;
And through him to reconcile all things unto himself...
(1 Colossians 15-20)