Buddhism and Christianity

[Thomas]

Greetings, Vajradhara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas

 

[marmalade]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Thomas]

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

Thomas

 

[Snoopy]

I had always assumed Buddhism was a monism.

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

s.

 

[Snoopy]

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

Oh yes.

s.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does not a changed life itself count as evidence physically?

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

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

i don't understand the question.

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

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

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

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

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

i see.

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

many beings do.

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

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

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

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

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

In my case, Christian Revelation is the evidence.

are you a Biblical literalist, Thomas?

metta,

~v

 

[Thomas]

Greeting Vajradhara —

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

Cound you explain 'intrasubjective'?

are you a Biblical literalist, Thomas?

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

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

Pax tecum,

Thomas

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Thomas,

thank you for the post.

Greeting Vajradhara —


Cound you explain 'intrasubjective'?

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

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

Evidence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

metta,

~v

 

[Netti-Netti]

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

 

[Dah-veeth]

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

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

 

[Vajradhara]

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

Namaste Dah-veeth,

thank you for the post.

do you think that you can find any Suttas or Sutras which assert the belief in a static, unchanging aspect of being? the texts will use the term "atman" if you are searching the Pali/Sanskrit versions.

metta,

~v

 

[marmalade]

I'm reading Robert M. Price's translations of pre-Nicene writings that influenced early Christianity. Price sees the early writings as being a mix of a variety of sects.

In case you don't know who Price is, he was a Baptist Preacher who is now an Episcopelian. He is very critical of much of Christianity. He was a long-term member of the Jesus Seminar, and now is a member of the Jesus Project. He joined the Jesus Seminar believing in a historical Christ, but no longer thinks that there is any evidence for it. He interprets from a variety of perspectives including looking at mythical parallels.

Amazon.com: The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts: Books: Robert M. Price

He has an introduction for each text. I saw something that relates to this thread in his intro to 'The Preaching of John' which is a part of 'Acts of John'. He explains all of the types of Docetism that were found in the early texts to give comparison to the text at hand. The part I quote here follows right after this comparison(pp 720-721).

But sure the most radical and thoroughgoing version of doctism is that presented in the Preaching of John, whereby the physical presence of Jesus on earth was entirely a shadow play. His divine presence might assume any chosen form from insubstantiality to steely invulnerability. He might take on various bodily shapes, even appearing differently to different observers simultaneously.

This kind of docetism is not restricted to /Crhistianity. It prevailed as the normative understanding of Buddhism in the form of the Trikaya doctrine of the three bodies of the Buddha. All Buddhas are cosmic entities, ultimately sharing the ultimate reality of the Dharmakaya(truth body) but differentiated as distinct celestial personae(Amitabha, Dipankara Gotama, Maitreya, Manjushri) in a heavely dimension, the Samboghkaya(glory body, like the Son enthroned at the right hand of the Father). In addition, the Nirmankaya(transformation body) is the visible form circulating among mortals on earth. The average person looks at the Buddha and sees but a fellow human being, but the spiritual adept beholds the marks of the superman including towering height, glowing skin, long earlobes, a tuft of hair between the yees marking the open third eye, and a topknot of hair marking the active crown chakra. The point is the same in the gospel Transfiguration narratives when the elite three disciples see Jesus in his true heavenly form. Ultra-Shi'ite Islam developed its own form of the belief, making Ali, the successor of the prophet Muhammad, an earthly manifestation of Allah, only apparently flesh and blood. One may wonder if docetism has not, after all, prevailed as well in popular Christianity where people find it hard to imagine Jesus needing to eat, defecate, have sex, or learn anything he did not already know.

As a note to 'The First Epistle of Peter' he has this to say:

J.D.M. Derret, The Bible and the Buddhists(Bornato in Franciacorta: Editrice Sardini, 2000), says the motif of a savior easing the torments of the damned in hell is a Buddhist theme, borrowed or developed independently over time but not originally Christian.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Marmalade —

I'm reading Robert M. Price's translations of pre-Nicene writings that influenced early Christianity. Price sees the early writings as being a mix of a variety of sects.

OK, so one man's opinion.

He was a long-term member of the Jesus Seminar, and now is a member of the Jesus Project. He joined the Jesus Seminar believing in a historical Christ, but no longer thinks that there is any evidence for it.

The method of the Jesus Seminar has been demonstrated to be deeply flawed. If he has moved to a position refuting the historical Jesus absolutely, then he's occupying a profoundly 'fundamentalist' position, on very infirm ground. The evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus is actually growing ... even secular sociological theory supports it.

He interprets from a variety of perspectives including looking at mythical parallels.

This ground has been well trodden and well argued. Check out Bultmann, he's the 'godfather' of Price's philosophical position. Then look at Benoit's response, which highlights three fundamental assumptions of the Bultmann position. I would suggest the same argument can be deployed against Price.

... I saw something that relates to this thread in his intro to 'The Preaching of John' which is a part of 'Acts of John'. He explains all of the types of Docetism that were found in the early texts to give comparison to the text at hand.

That's funny. I'm just finalised an essay that argues that the First Epistle of John set out to refute a nascent Doceticsm that threatened the community.

"whereby the physical presence of Jesus on earth was entirely a shadow play."

RAOFL — sorry, but quite how he comes to that conclusion escapes me. I'd like to see how he dismisses 1 John 5:6 "This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood" — the reference to blood being an explicit refutation of any Docetic doctrine.

Historical evidence points to John's Gospel refuting the neoDocetism of Cerinthus, and First John refuting the same error in the community that prioritised the Divinity of Jesus over His humanity.

Read Price by all means, but please acknowledge he is an extremist, and please read others, so that you might get a balanced view from which to draw your own conclusions.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Greetings Vajradhara —

Thanks for the links. I will read and consider, so please allow that my response might not be immediate.

pax tecum,

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

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

I have no doubt the Buddha believed in the soul

I believe in Buddhism "soul" is considered an artifact of faulty thinking, that is, an illusion. That's seems quite different from the Christian notion of differentiated spiritual substance whose immortality is ensured by salvation. An illusion almost by definition has no substance and no permanence.

In Buddhism, there is also no transcendent supreme Being who offers salvation and who is seen as an object of worship.

I see Buddhism as a nontheistic metaphysics with a humanistic aspect for ethics.

 

[seattlegal]

Namaste Dah-veeth,

thank you for the post.

do you think that you can find any Suttas or Sutras which assert the belief in a static, unchanging aspect of being? the texts will use the term "atman" if you are searching the Pali/Sanskrit versions.

metta,

~v

Are there any Buddhist concepts whereby something akin to "self" or "soul" is conceived of as a verb, adjective, or adverb, rather than as a noun? {To address the attachment to "static, unchanging?"}

 

[bob x]

There is analogy in "The Questions of King Menander" (Greek-descended king of Bactria, a successor kingdom to Alexander's realm in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan; his coins are bilingual, with Athena and the owl on the front inscribed Basileou Menandrou Dikaiou in Greek letters and the eight-spoked wheel on the back inscribed Maharajasa Minindrasa Dharmikasa in Sanskrit script). His teacher analogizes the soul to a propagating fire: none of the individual tongues of flame have much endurance, nor can it be truly said that it remains the "same" fire, yet there is a clear chain of causation.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Seattle Gal,

Buddhists do not believe in a soul or Atman, but they believe in something called a "stream of consciousness." To me, it is the same thing by different names.

There is also the issue of the impermanence of the soul or Atman. I believe Buddha said he did not believe in a permanent soul or Atman (which is where I think all of the confusion comes from). Christians see a soul as being eternal, while Buddhists do not see a "stream of consciousness" as being eternal. (I am 100% with the Buddhists on this one. I do not think any aspect of the human condition can be described as eternal, and Buddhists agree.)

 

[marmalade]

OK, so one man's opinion.

Well, I thought it was kind of obvious that I was quoting one person. This one person happens to be a mainstream Biblical scholar. However, he is far from being the only one who holds such a view.

The method of the Jesus Seminar has been demonstrated to be deeply flawed.

Yes, it has been demonstrated as deeply flawed in the minds of apologists. The Jesus Seminar even started with the assumption that Jesus existed before even considering the evidence. They had a bias, but it wasn't the one you're implying. When Price joined the Jesus Seminar, he believed in an historical Christ.

If he has moved to a position refuting the historical Jesus absolutely, then he's occupying a profoundly 'fundamentalist' position, on very infirm ground.

Price is the very opposite of fundamentalist. He admits that there are many possible interpretations. In fact, this is the central tenet of his theorizing. Only if someone believes the evidence is cut and dry, can they be deemed fundamentalist. Price was a Baptist preacher and still is an Episcopelian. He is critical of Christianity, but doesn't dismiss it all out of hand. Is that the attitude of a fundamentalist and an extremist?

The evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus is actually growing ... even secular sociological theory supports it.

I'd be curious in what way you believe it to be increasing. Have more ancient texts been unearthed? Have they finally found non-Christian records that refer to Jesus?

In the time I've spent following discussions about historicity, I haven't yet seen any clear evidence. But I must admit I don't have much need to find any as it has no relation to my personal beliefs... for or against. I just figure that if evidence truly existed, then there wouldn't be all of the endless nitpicking over small details.

This ground has been well trodden and well argued. Check out Bultmann, he's the 'godfather' of Price's philosophical position. Then look at Benoit's response, which highlights three fundamental assumptions of the Bultmann position. I would suggest the same argument can be deployed against Price.

I've never read Bultmann nor Benoit, but I have seen Price mention Bultmann. What philosophical position are you claiming Price to have? I did a search for Benoit, but I couldn't find Benoit mentioning about three fundamental assumptions. Could you provide a quote or a link?

That's funny. I'm just finalised an essay that argues that the First Epistle of John set out to refute a nascent Doceticsm that threatened the community.

Price, p738
"It was appreciated and edited by both sides in the controversy, the result being that what we have is a contradictory, composite document."

RAOFL — sorry, but quite how he comes to that conclusion escapes me.

If you already have your mind made up, then its not surprising that Price's view which you disagree with 'escapes' you. It would be easy for you to discover how he came to that conclusion. You could read his book. He also has several books worth of writing on the web.

I'd like to see how he dismisses 1 John 5:6 "This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood" — the reference to blood being an explicit refutation of any Docetic doctrine.

Here is his translation:
"This is the one who appears with water and blood, Jesus-Christ. not merely with water, but with water and blood."

His note to this:
"John19:34. This is a refutation of docetism even though one who "bled" water might seem to be a god masquerading in human form. Our author insists Jesus was really human."

The next sentence in his translation:
"And we know this from the Spirit because the Spirit is the truth."

The note to it:
"John 15:26, 12-14. Here we learn that the piercing of the heart of Jesus in John 19:34 is not an item of historical memory but a revelation after the fact like those made to Anna Katherina Emmerich. Hence the appeal here to the Spirit's veracious character as corroboration. This should make us think twice before taking 1 John 1:1-3 as eyewitness memory."

Historical evidence points to John's Gospel refuting the neoDocetism of Cerinthus, and First John refuting the same error in the community that prioritised the Divinity of Jesus over His humanity.

Price favors the view that the docetists and non-docetists were competing. He isn't arguing that 1 John is entirely or even primarily docetist. He is only arguing that docetism(and other gnostic beliefs) are mixed in. I could give you a few more of his notes about this if you'd like.

Read Price by all means, but please acknowledge he is an extremist, and please read others, so that you might get a balanced view from which to draw your own conclusions.

Your attitude of condescension is neither needed nor desired. I have read various scholars besides him, and certainly there are many more I could read. I come at biblical scholarship from numerous angles. I've followed many threads and I've seen all the various kinds of arguments. My views are fairly balanced, but that is besides the point. Many(possibly most) people interested in biblical studies(scholars included) don't have balanced views.

 

[Dah-veeth]

Has anyone here heard of Pure Land Buddhism? They believe in Paradise.