Are Buddhism and Christianity compatible or mutually exclusive?

[fabianfred]

Whatever the truth of the matter, the Bible cannot be used to validate itself. If that were so, then the Qur'an is demonstrably the word of God (because it says it is).

Just to clarify, are you saying that the Dhamma can be used to validate itself?

Yes, law of nature.

In Thai Dhamma is Thamma and Nature is Thammachart. The Buddha's dhamma is not his own invention but his rediscovery of lost and forgotten and misunderstood natural laws and then teaching of them.

The law of karma is the most important of these natural laws.

By practicing meditation and mindfulness we can verify the truth of the dhamma for ourselves.

[fabianfred]

A baby born has not to pay the bill of a former life, a baby has to learn how not to pay the bill for bad deeds in this life. Enough. Metaphysical speculations the Buddha rejected, Abidhamma compilations of the suttas (Buddhaghosa) are not clean from translation problems at this topic.

karma is not metaphysical speculation but the words of the Buddha...

The Cause of Inequality. Majjhima Nikaya-Cula kammavibhanga Sutta.

Perplexed by the seemingly inexplicable,apparent disparity that exist amongst humanity,young Subha,seeking the truth approached Lord Buddha,who was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove,Anathapindika's monastery.

After paying respect,he sat down to one side and asked" What is the reason,oh Lord,that we find amongst mankind the short lived(appayuka) and the long lived(dighayuka),the diseased(bavhabadha) and the healthy(appabadha),the ugly(dubbanna) and the beautiful(vannavanta),the powerless(appesakka) and the powerful(mahesakka),the poor(appabhoga) and the rich(mahabhoga), the lowborn(nicakuina) and the hgh born(uccakulina), the ignorant(duppanna) and the wise(pannavanta)?

The Buddha replied"All living beings are owners of their kamma,heirs of their kamma,born of their kamma,related to their kamma,refuge in their kamma.

Lord Buddha then went on to explain what was meant by this.

If a person destroys life,is a hunter,has blood on his hands,is engaged in killing and wounding,and is not merciful towards(all) living beings,he, as a result of his killing,at the end of his life,at the break upf his body,will re-appear in the lower realms,the states of deprivation or the hell realms,or,if born amongst mankind,will be short lived.

If a person avoids killing, putting aside cudgel and weapon,and is merciful and compassionate towards all living beings,he, as a result of his non killing when born amongst mankind, will be long lived.

If a person is in the habit of hurting others with fist or clod, cudgel or sword, as a result of his harmfulness,when born amongst mankind,will suffer from various diseases.

If a person is not in the habit of hurting others,he, as a result of his harmlessness, when born amongst mankind, will enjoy good health.

If a person is wrathful and turbulent, is irritated by a trivial word, gives vent to anger, ill will and resentment, he, as a result of his irritability, when born amongst mankind, will become ugly.

If a person is not wrathful or turbulent, is not irritated even by a torrent of abuse, does not give vent to anger, ill will and resentment, he, as a result of his amiability, when born amongst mankind,will become beautiful.

If a person is jealous, envies the gains of others, marks of respect and honour shown to others, stores jealousy in his heart, he, as a result of his jealousy, when born amongst mankind, will be powerless.

If a person is not jealous, does not envy the gains of others, marks of respect and honour shown to others, does not store jealousy in his heart,he, as a result of his absence of jealousy, when born amongst mankind, will be powerful.

If a person does not give anything for charity, he, as a result of his greediness, when born amongst mankind, will be poor.

If a person takes joy in charitable giving, he, as aresult of his generosity, when born amongst mankind, he well be rich.

If a person is stubborn, haughty, does not honour those who deserve honour,as a result of his arrogance and irreverence, when born amongst mankind, will be of low birth.

If a person is not stubborn, not haughty, honours those who deserve honour, he, as a result of his humility and deference, when born amongst mankind, will be of high birth.

If a person does not approach the learned and the virtuous and inquire what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong, what should be practiced and what should not be practiced, what should be done and what shouldn't be done, what is conducive to one's welfare and what is conducive to one's ruin, he, as a result of his non inquiring spirit, when born amongst mankind, will be ignorant.

If a person does approach the learned and the virtuous and inquire what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong, what should be practiced and what should not be practiced, what should be done and what shouldn't be done, what is is conducive to one's welfare and what is conducive to one's ruin, he, as a result of his inquiring spirit, when born amongst mankind, will be intelligent.

We Are the Heirs of Our Kamma

[christiaan]

Just imagine you could 'translate' God by : Ultimate Awareness

So when a person believes in ultimate awareness (where the utimate truth is a part within) he will be 'saved' (for the next future)

When a person rejects ultimate awareness (where the ultimate truth is a part within) he cannot be saved and will not be saved and will dwell in eternity unaware, what is considered to be hell to a person/spirit.

Sounds like a good summary of Christiaanism to me, but I think the topic is more concerned with "standard" or at least doctrinal Christianity and Buddhism.

I consider this to be a clever way, an excuse to avoid to touch the essence of the content.

You ofcourse can think or believe what you like, no objection. But the topic does not tell there is more concerned with standard or at least doctrinal Cristianity and Buddhism.

If so, change the topic !

Is this also recognised to be Christiaanism?

I almost consider the term Christiaanism a compliment since it shows I can think for my self.

In esoteric Christianity we deal with other Christianity as the standard.

But who overhere does know?

To know we have to leave 'the surface'.

[Brucenkhamen]

I almost consider the term Christiaanism a compliment since it shows I can think for my self.

I'd have thought it shows an inability to stay on topic, a compulsion to bend a topic to your own agenda rather than discuss the question at hand in an open minded way.

However if you need the kind of validation that considering it a compliment provides good for you.

[christiaan]

Even putting aside the aspect of different religions, the belief in rebirth or disbelief makes a huge change in one's attitude towards life.

If you are Christian or Atheist who believes that we get one life, one chance, one bite of the cake then one's life would take on quite different meaning to one who believes in rebirth for whom this life is just one of many.

I always say that Christians have good intentions...their religion tells them that to avoid hell one must accept god so they go out of their way to try and convert others and get them to accept this hoping to avoid them suffering in hell.

But....I believe they are working with insufficient data since their belief doesn't teach them about rebirth and karma, and their well meaning meddling in forcing others to convert also causes much suffering too.

This of course has been the sticking point.

The ego, or I we are conscious of (Rocky, Fred, & others) is conditioned and finite.

When we die, the entity we know as I or ego will extinguish.

Believing that Rocky, Fred or any other, will continue is egotistical.

Then what, or who is the constant when re birth occurs, as there is no soul?

In essence, even if there is something associated with our I or ego, and which is the constant between the cast of I's or ego's in a chain of re births, it is not known to us.

Therefore when Rocky, Fred, or others, dies it is an eternal death in practical terms as we were never introduced or are conscious of the common or constant, and the ego was the only entity we were ever aware of.

I am no Buddhist 'believer' but in my 'view' I reincarnate, this means to me I will be born again after I spend time in the spiritual world.

Since overhere we seem to have permission to write out of different views/experiences to see compatabillity I give my view.

When I am born I still have to enter my body with my awareness/consciousness.

This takes time and development.

One can maybe see this as when a car is build.

When the car has started to be build I have to wait till the car is finished before I can take possession of it and drive it.

With our body it is somehow different, we can enter it slowly in time.

And when the 'car' is finished, when I have taken full possession of its body, with all its magnificent abillities, I am driving it and deciding where to go.

And when I am driving it I am responsible, not the car.

In most countries even the culture is paying attention to this in the juridical system. A child is not held responsible in a way an adult is.

I do not 'believe' I get one life, I know this is one of my lifes.

I also know there are quite a number of Christians who believe or maybe even know they will have a next life and had lifes before.

But they are no 'standard' Christians. But as far as I know they are deeply inspired by the Bible so they are Christians and should not be neglected when looking at the situation we are dealing with.

I mean to say; it is not much of an absolute truth to think Christian all do not believe in reincarnation.

As I wrote before I consider a human to be a spiritual entity manifested in a human body.

This spiritual entity is what can tell : I Am

I can tell to another human, even to a horse, or a bird: You are (in my awareness) but I can only tell to my self : I am - in (my) awareness.

This tells me at the moment I tell I am: my awareness is telling my awareness it is.

This I , this awareness is not depending on a physical existence, it is o awareness.

This awareness is the Alpha and the Omega, it has no beginning and no end. It is awareness within awareness.

When I die my physical body fals apart to its material essence. Dust will be dust again.

At that time my thinking also ends, my mind ends since my thinking in concepts, all thoughts are related to the physical brain.

When I die I am still aware, I Am aware, since I Am awareness

When Krishnamurti gathered with people in 1985 in India (one year before he passed the treshold himself) after Indira Gandhi was assasinated, he suddenly told the people to be aware since Indira Gandhi was in their midst.

When I die I no longer 'live' anymore in physical existence but only in spiritual existence within awareness.

On earth we experience the other physical manifestations with our physical senses and think about this experiences becoming aware of it.

In healthy effort of thinking, healthy concentration, contemplation, meditation, we are able to lift up the duality of the sense experince and see the living ideas 'hidden' in the manifestations

In doing so we lift up our own duality and reach enlightment.

The field were our body and spirit meet is the soul, the soul is: will, feeling, thinking.

In our soul our ego lives.

With our " I am ", we can be aware of not only our I, and of all phenomenons in the world but we can also be aware of our ego and of our soul.The more awareness we have the more spiritual our I.

That is why we can say: " I am sorry, I am aware I did do wrong out of wrong motivation".

When we die , our ego dies, that specific ego will be gone.

When we have lived as John F. Kennedy we will never ever be John F. Kennedy again.

When we die our ego will extinguish and since our ego extinguish we cannot be egotistical after dead, after dead only our spirit continues to be, so then we are spiritual and we cannot even be egotistical.

It is not logic to think we can, it is in contradiction to think we can be egotistical after dead when our ego is extinguished after dead.

Only in thinking before we die our ego will 'survive' or be 'safe',....we can be egotistical, but not after!

After we die we do not live anymore outside the world enclosed in our own bodies in duality separated from the world around us.

After we die we have no need for thinking to grasp the spiritual reality within the physical world, no need for concepts, since after we die we are inside those spiritual realities, inside the living idea's and experience them being one with them. That is the characteristic of the spiritual world.

There is reality what is told overhere: To understand the world, a suffering man, a flowering plant, a running horse, we have to become one with it.

[Xangsamhua]

Whatever the truth of the matter, the Bible cannot be used to validate itself. If that were so, then the Qur'an is demonstrably the word of God (because it says it is).

Just to clarify, are you saying that the Dhamma can be used to validate itself?

Yes, law of nature.

Vince, I'm assuming you mean Dhamma as in the teachings of the Buddha rather than universal transphenomenal or natural law (or any phenomenon).

If so, then Dhamma also cannot validate itself.

If the Buddha taught the doctrine of Karma, as Fred has evidenced above from the Pali scriptures, then one can only claim that the Buddha taught it, not that it is a valid teaching. We could decide that, given the total evidence we have, via the texts and traditions, of the validity of the Buddhadhamma, we can deduce that his teaching on karma is valid also. But this is not the dhamma validating itself. For that to occur, one would have to argue that this deduction applies to all the canonical scriptures, and hence whatever is said in any scripture is valid thereby. Furthermore, the validity of any teaching must be tested against the scriptures and, as the scriptures constitute the Buddhadhamma in a fixed form, the Buddhadhamma is called upon to validate itself.

However, the authority of the scriptures to be the judge rests in the earlier deduction that if some of the Buddha's recorded teachings are valid then all must be valid. This, however, is not a logically valid argument. It is an induction: "Some or most of what the Buddha teachers is true; therefore all his teachings are true" that leads to a deduction: "All his teachings are true; therefore this one must be true as well", but the original induction is not necessarily true (though it may be) and is most definitely not logically valid (though it may be a reasonable generalization).

The teaching on karma, for example, is also unscientific - not because it may be wrong, but because it can't be falsified. It is a faith-based teaching. Even if the Buddha actually did remember all his previous lives, we can't remember any of his previous lives, and we can't put his memory to the test.

But the other side of the Buddhadhamma - the practise and the teachings that the Buddha invited people to put to the test ("Does it work?" "Does it lead to good and not harm?") - can validate itself at least to a limited and relative extent ("It works for me, at least now." "I think it's doing more good than harm, but I'm not absolutely sure.") That's about as far as we can go, and we have to judge for ourselves. Even Dhamma as a body of teaching provides only a relative refuge, not an absolute one. There's still a way to go.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.

But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep,

And miles to go before I sleep.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[rockyysdt]

Therefore when Rocky, Fred, or others, dies it is an eternal death in practical terms as we were never introduced or are conscious of the common or constant, and the ego was the only entity we were ever aware of.

How do you know that in a thousand years time you won't be sitting on Mars under a tree meditating, enter the 4th jhana and remember being rocky posting today on thaivisa?

Yes, this may be possible, but it won't be me (Rocky) doing the remembering.

It may be the I or ego associated with that particular re birth and the common component associated with my lineage of re birth(if there is such a thing) that might remember.

I have no soul but rather moment by moment re birth at such a rate giving an illusion of consciousness, along with memory and conditioning.

This ego or I will end along with my body upon death.

My ego or I which is all l know or have experienced has had no acquaintance of anything associated with me which might endure.

Edited February 23, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I think you misinterpreting how Christians use the Bible, and there is actually a fundamental split among Christians about whether or not the Bible is, literally, the word of God, as opposed to the belief that the Bible is a document written by men who sometimes interpreted correctly and sometimes incorrectly the word of God.

This is not different than, in Buddhism, the difference of opinion about whether the Dhamma is the exact teachings of Buddha. And there are those who choose to believe that despite the fact that the Dhamma was not written down in Buddha's lifetime and was passed on by word of mouth for hundreds of years, that it is composed of the exact words of Buddha.

This is the reason why many Buddhists follow Theravada and refer to the Pali Canon.

These are the earliest teachings and are as close as can be possible to what the Buddha taught.

I know that many Christians generally ignore the Old Testament and embrace the love taught by Jesus.

Unfortunately they fail to understand that the Old Testament is inspired by God and can't be ignored.

Matthew 4:4:

But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone,

but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

In this quote from Matthew (also similar in Luke 4: 3 - 4) , Matthew is using material from the non-extant sayings source known as "Q" (also used by Luke) which reproduces in typical rabbinic dialogue form used by teachers of the Talmud and Midrash the temptation in the desert stories. In this case "scholars consider this passage, not as historical reality but pure Jewish midrash, intended to demonstrate that Jesus, the 'Son of God' resisted tempting offers and showed himself totally subservient to God." Geza Vermes. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. Penguin 2004: 195.

There is no evidence whatever that Jesus actually spoke these words to a live audience. This was simply a story that did the rounds among pre - 70 AD Jewish followers of Jesus to show how exemplary he was.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the Bible cannot be used to validate itself. If that were so, then the Qur'an is demonstrably the word of God (because it says it is).

Hi X.

I'll rely on your extensive knowledge on the subject to help me frame my points correctly.

Please tell me if l'm incorrect in what I put forward.

The Holy Spirit inspired the prophets and so all scripture is considered prophecy and the word of God.

As long as the quotation "it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." is prophecy it doesn't matter if Jesus didn't utter it.

The Old Testament (Jewish) is the word and law of God, the same God associated with Jesus.

The New Testament can't be embraced in isolation as Jesus said he didn't come to change the law, not one bit.

Therefore Christianity although replacing blood sacrifice with Jesus crucifixion is incomplete without embracing the Old Testament.

Many modern Christians pay no credence to the Old Testament, but according to God himself, must live by his every word.

Did I get anything wrong?

Again the difference between Buddhism & Christianity is that God demands worship, whilst the Buddha teaches experience through awareness.

[rockyysdt]

I am not the same person I was when i was a ten year old boy.....I have altered physically and mentally and gained experience, perhaps knowledge and wisdom, used up karma, created new karma....but there is a subtle connection between me and that boy....as there is between that boy and the new-born baby...and the existence in a previous life. It is not necessary to be able to remember past lives for them to have been real and subtly connected to this one.

The subtle connection is the unspent karma.

This unspent karma fashions the new re birth.

Apart from this there is nothing else as you are finite and conditioned and illusory.

So what becomes enlightened or achieves freedom from suffering?

Remembering that you (ego, or l) was never born as you are illusion.

The suffering I cause other beings in this existence should be paid for...that is only fair.... and a continuum of this present being will suffer in a future existence for it....not necessary to remember this life and how we caused it.

Those born into a shitty life now cannot remember their past when they created the cause....but if they realise they are simply paying the bill off then they can ease their suffering and accept that it is fair and just....and be determined not to create more future suffering.

You (Fred) won't pay anything in a future existence as you are illusion.

Only the continuum will pay, but this can't pay either as it is only a vehicle or process.

What will pay is another illusion fashioned by the karmic force accumulated from the results of previous re births.

Fred won't suffer in the next re birth as he is conditioned and finite and illusory.

Another ego or I will suffer in the next re birth.

You are just laying the foundations for the next ego.

Remember that there is no soul.

In other words your illusion is all that you know and have experienced.

You are not aware of anything else, continuum, previous re births, or anything enduring which constitutes your lineage.

Your illusion which is your reality is going to die forever.

It's like Robin Williams in Bicentennial Man.

A robot who had human characteristics and consciousness which was illusory.

He went to the World Council to be considered a human.

He was rejected because, he didn't have a soul (and he was immortal).

In Dhamma we are described as Bicentennial Men.

There is nothing inside.

Footnote:

You are devoting your whole life towards assisting another illusion, which is foreign to you in everyway other than being fashioned by your unspent karma, from, either living with reduced or greater suffering, or having the opportunity to experience enlightenment.

Unless you become enlightened in this life, your sacrifice will not help you one bit as you will disappear from any existence, illusory or other when you die.

Edited February 23, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Whatever the truth of the matter, the Bible cannot be used to validate itself.

This is the dilemma Christians find themselves in.

They either follow the Old & New Testaments as the word of God with the promise of eternal life in Heaven upon death, or create their own faith by picking and choosing.

The problem with this is, that everything unravels and nothing can be proven until death at which time you find yourself at Gabriel's Gates.

[rockyysdt]

The Buddha replied"All living beings are owners of their kamma,heirs of their kamma,born of their kamma,related to their kamma,refuge in their kamma.

If a person is not wrathful or turbulent, is not irritated even by a torrent of abuse, does not give vent to anger, ill will and resentment, he, as a result of his amiability, when born amongst mankind,will become beautiful.

If a person does not give anything for charity, he, as a result of his greediness, when born amongst mankind, will be poor.

Inheriting beauty is not necessarily a good thing.

I am aware of poor who have suffered considerably as a consequence of being beautiful.

On the other hand, siblings, who were not so beautiful, escaped the same suffering.

If becoming beautiful is a reward for not being wrathful or turbulent, then it appears ironic that a penalty is reaped.

The beautiful are also exposed to such things as vanity.

[canuckamuck]

Whatever the truth of the matter, the Bible cannot be used to validate itself.

This is the dilemma Christians find themselves in.

They either follow the Old & New Testaments as the word of God with the promise of eternal life in Heaven upon death, or create their own faith by picking and choosing.

The problem with this is, that everything unravels and nothing can be proven until death at which time you find yourself at Gabriel's Gates.

Sorry i was away for two days I see I have missed a lot, but most was off topic.

Rocky, Christians don't have a problem with the Old Testament. Most pastor's preach from both, usually in the same message. Yes some Christians pick and choose, that's a shame. But have we ever seen Buddhists pick and choose? Yes, I think we have.

We also don't have a problem with things unraveling. And where is Gabriele's Gates?

I see that it is considered a flaw if in our Theology there are things that not fully understood (ie, slavery) but in Buddhism, although there is disagreement at nearly every step between adherents, this is considered progressive.

[lungmi]

Therefore when Rocky, Fred, or others, dies it is an eternal death in practical terms as we were never introduced or are conscious of the common or constant, and the ego was the only entity we were ever aware of.

How do you know that in a thousand years time you won't be sitting on Mars under a tree meditating, enter the 4th jhana and remember being rocky posting today on thaivisa?

He doesn't care knowing Camerata already stays there.

[Nawak]

Is common sense compatible with people who believe religion or a philosophy like christianism or buddhism ?

Just live in peace with any other people around you and you'll be fine with the ticket to the nirvana.

BTW, I'm an atheist.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Nawak

[phetaroi]

Whatever the truth of the matter, the Bible cannot be used to validate itself. If that were so, then the Qur'an is demonstrably the word of God (because it says it is).

Just to clarify, are you saying that the Dhamma can be used to validate itself?

Yes, law of nature.

Vince, I'm assuming you mean Dhamma as in the teachings of the Buddha rather than universal transphenomenal or natural law (or any phenomenon).

If so, then Dhamma also cannot validate itself.

If the Buddha taught the doctrine of Karma, as Fred has evidenced above from the Pali scriptures, then one can only claim that the Buddha taught it, not that it is a valid teaching. We could decide that, given the total evidence we have, via the texts and traditions, of the validity of the Buddhadhamma, we can deduce that his teaching on karma is valid also. But this is not the dhamma validating itself. For that to occur, one would have to argue that this deduction applies to all the canonical scriptures, and hence whatever is said in any scripture is valid thereby. Furthermore, the validity of any teaching must be tested against the scriptures and, as the scriptures constitute the Buddhadhamma in a fixed form, the Buddhadhamma is called upon to validate itself.

However, the authority of the scriptures to be the judge rests in the earlier deduction that if some of the Buddha's recorded teachings are valid then all must be valid. This, however, is not a logically valid argument. It is an induction: "Some or most of what the Buddha teachers is true; therefore all his teachings are true" that leads to a deduction: "All his teachings are true; therefore this one must be true as well", but the original induction is not necessarily true (though it may be) and is most definitely not logically valid (though it may be a reasonable generalization).

The teaching on karma, for example, is also unscientific - not because it may be wrong, but because it can't be falsified. It is a faith-based teaching. Even if the Buddha actually did remember all his previous lives, we can't remember any of his previous lives, and we can't put his memory to the test.

But the other side of the Buddhadhamma - the practise and the teachings that the Buddha invited people to put to the test ("Does it work?" "Does it lead to good and not harm?") - can validate itself at least to a limited and relative extent ("It works for me, at least now." "I think it's doing more good than harm, but I'm not absolutely sure.") That's about as far as we can go, and we have to judge for ourselves. Even Dhamma as a body of teaching provides only a relative refuge, not an absolute one. There's still a way to go.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.

But I have promises to keep,

And miles to go before I sleep,

And miles to go before I sleep.

Thank you, Xangsamhua. Although I know some people on the forum will be sad to hear this, this posting of yours has made me decide to remain in the forum for at least a while longer. I have seriously been considering leaving the forum for a number of reasons:

a. The people who post with any regularity here are very small in number, and quite a few of the posters are almost totally predictable in virtually any thread in which they participate. And, I have long believed that whether it is in regards to politics or religion, people who are virtually totally predictable aren't really thinking. Instead they are relying on faith...and as I have stated in the past, there is nothing wrong with relying on faith, providing one realizes the difference between faith and fact. For example, when I see someone say that the Dhamma does validate itself, then I say, okay, if that's the principle that's valid in Buddhism, then that same principle is valid for those who say the same thing in (for example) Christian fundamentalism. I don't believe that the Bible validates itself (is the word of God by God), or that the Koran validates itself, or that the Dhamma validates itself...because all of these (and many other religious documents) were written by regular men.

b. To me the validation comes from -- as I think Buddha himself said -- personally testing the principles and seeing if they consistently work. I fully accept the Four Noble Truths (although I am not convinced that even they are 100% correctly understood). I fully accept The Eightfold Path, again with some minor differences in interpretation. The basic precepts are a little more problematic, depending on how they are interpreted. I fully accept the concept of karma within this lifetime, am less convinced about karma over lifetimes, and have trouble accepting that karma "just happens". Rebirth and nibanna...well, I just don't know. The concept of emptiness...again, I just don't know. So, I accept an awfully lot, but because I don't accept 100% "hook, line, and sinker", I am accused of treating Buddhism as a smorgasbord...and that is clearly a put-down. In reality, in some aspects of Buddhism I'm just saying that I'm not "there" yet. I'm open-minded, for example, with rebirth and nibanna, but the concepts haven't been proven to me yet, and I'm not going to accept then on mindless faith alone. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm just saying...maybe...just not sure for myself, and I have no problem with others fully accepting those particular concepts.

c. And then we have one member of the forum who is strident, aggressive, accusatory, and snide. "He" is out to have Buddhism win some sort of nonexistent competition...to prove that Buddhism is the one and only RIGHT religion. And I find those attitudes just as distasteful when assumed by a Buddhist, as I do when assumed by a fundamentalist Christian. Even when I was "fully" Christian, I loathed the concept of "Onward Christian Soldiers", and I loathe the concept of "Onward Buddhist soldiers"...and find no support for that in any Buddhist scriptures I have ever read or heard about. I have a really big problem with people who basically say, "I have all the right answers and anyone else in the world who thinks differently is wrong" (in terms of religion). Frankly, I think that is a violation of the "right thought" aspect of The Eightfold Path. It is egotism -- a very un-Buddhist concept -- at its worst.

But, when I read posters like you who are generally quite balanced, well, gives me a reason to stick around for a while longer and continue to learn.

[christiaan]

Phetaroi:

Thank you, Xangsamhua. Although I know some people on the forum will be sad to hear this, this posting of yours has made me decide to remain in the forum for at least a while longer. I have seriously been considering leaving the forum for a number of reasons:

a. The people who post with any regularity here are very small in number, and quite a few of the posters are almost totally predictable in virtually any thread in which they participate. And, I have long believed that whether it is in regards to politics or religion, people who are virtually totally predictable aren't really thinking. Instead they are relying on faith...and as I have stated in the past, there is nothing wrong with relying on faith, providing one realizes the difference between faith and fact. For example, when I see someone say that the Dhamma does validate itself, then I say, okay, if that's the principle that's valid in Buddhism, then that same principle is valid for those who say the same thing in (for example) Christian fundamentalism. I don't believe that the Bible validates itself (is the word of God by God), or that the Koran validates itself, or that the Dhamma validates itself...because all of these (and many other religious documents) were written by regular men.

b. To me the validation comes from -- as I think Buddha himself said -- personally testing the principles and seeing if they consistently work. I fully accept the Four Noble Truths (although I am not convinced that even they are 100% correctly understood). I fully accept The Eightfold Path, again with some minor differences in interpretation. The basic precepts are a little more problematic, depending on how they are interpreted. I fully accept the concept of karma within this lifetime, am less convinced about karma over lifetimes, and have trouble accepting that karma "just happens". Rebirth and nibanna...well, I just don't know. The concept of emptiness...again, I just don't know. So, I accept an awfully lot, but because I don't accept 100% "hook, line, and sinker", I am accused of treating Buddhism as a smorgasbord...and that is clearly a put-down. In reality, in some aspects of Buddhism I'm just saying that I'm not "there" yet. I'm open-minded, for example, with rebirth and nibanna, but the concepts haven't been proven to me yet, and I'm not going to accept then on mindless faith alone. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'm just saying...maybe...just not sure for myself, and I have no problem with others fully accepting those particular concepts.

c. And then we have one member of the forum who is strident, aggressive, accusatory, and snide. "He" is out to have Buddhism win some sort of nonexistent competition...to prove that Buddhism is the one and only RIGHT religion. And I find those attitudes just as distasteful when assumed by a Buddhist, as I do when assumed by a fundamentalist Christian. Even when I was "fully" Christian, I loathed the concept of "Onward Christian Soldiers", and I loathe the concept of "Onward Buddhist soldiers"...and find no support for that in any Buddhist scriptures I have ever read or heard about. I have a really big problem with people who basically say, "I have all the right answers and anyone else in the world who thinks differently is wrong" (in terms of religion). Frankly, I think that is a violation of the "right thought" aspect of The Eightfold Path. It is egotism -- a very un-Buddhist concept -- at its worst.

But, when I read posters like you who are generally quite balanced, well, gives me a reason to stick around for a while longer and continue to learn.

Christiaan:

I could have written, independently, almost the same contribution. The same facts and about the same opinion.

I just respect autonomous and original thinking.

Thank you Xangsamhua and Phetaroi

[fabianfred]

The Buddha replied"All living beings are owners of their kamma,heirs of their kamma,born of their kamma,related to their kamma,refuge in their kamma.

If a person is not wrathful or turbulent, is not irritated even by a torrent of abuse, does not give vent to anger, ill will and resentment, he, as a result of his amiability, when born amongst mankind,will become beautiful.

If a person does not give anything for charity, he, as a result of his greediness, when born amongst mankind, will be poor.

Inheriting beauty is not necessarily a good thing.

I am aware of poor who have suffered considerably as a consequence of being beautiful.

On the other hand, siblings, who were not so beautiful, escaped the same suffering.

If becoming beautiful is a reward for not being wrathful or turbulent, then it appears ironic that a penalty is reaped.

The beautiful are also exposed to such things as vanity.

Yet both beauty and riches are sought after and admired by many. That either can also cause suffering is irrelevant.

When we look at rich people we see that they rarely are happy.

Do not forget that there are four kinds of karma....

positive..bringing a positive result

negative bringing a negative result

both positive and negative bringing a both positive and negative result

neither positive nor negative...bringing no result....neutral karma...an Arahant only produces this kind of karma

[Brucenkhamen]

quite a few of the posters are almost totally predictable in virtually any thread in which they participate. And, I have long believed that whether it is in regards to politics or religion, people who are virtually totally predictable aren't really thinking.

Let he who is without predictability cast the first stone.

b. To me the validation comes from -- as I think Buddha himself said -- personally testing the principles and seeing if they consistently work.

Yes this is how the process is supposed to work.

[Brucenkhamen]

Yes some Christians pick and choose, that's a shame. But have we ever seen Buddhists pick and choose? Yes, I think we have.

...

I see that it is considered a flaw if in our Theology there are things that not fully understood (ie, slavery) but in Buddhism, although there is disagreement at nearly every step between adherents, this is considered progressive.

Sounds like you are making a case for compatability on the basis that people of both faiths pick and choose and people of both faiths have disagreements between adherents.

We all pick and choose every day in all aspects of our lives, finding what works best for us under the circumstances, but somehow when it comes to religious/spiritual/philosophical aspects of life pick and choose is a dirty word, or three.

I think we need to apply the same level of selectivity to religious/spiritual/philosophical aspects of life, if not more so considering it's importance.

The problem arises that some people do that picking and choosing based on emotional reactions, attachments, a desire to conform, or a desire to be all inclusive, these people might deserve the label flakey with the incoherent mess they end up with.

However if the picking and choosing is done objectively and results in an approach that is coherent and works then this is a good thing, and I think this is far far better than having blindly accepted a package deal without any scrutiny.

If I were to pick and choose clothing that clashed with each other, was inappropriate for my age, sex, climate, or what I planned to do that day I'd deserve ridicule, if I did the same with religious/spiritual/philosophical aspects of life then I'd deserve the same.

[phetaroi]

...

However if the picking and choosing is done objectively and results in an approach that is coherent and works then this is a good thing, and I think this is far far better than having blindly accepted a package deal without any scrutiny.

Yes, exactly. For example, when I considered myself Catholic, it really bothered me that the Catholic Church was saying that only Catholics can "go to heaven", because only Catholics go to formal confession. That excludes all other Christians, not to mention Buddhists, Muslims, etc. It isn't that I ever had any qualms about going to confession, but I just think it's a wrong concept. Therefore, I do not accept it, but it has nothing to do with a smorgasbord approach.

[Brucenkhamen]

Yes, exactly. For example, when I considered myself Catholic, it really bothered me that the Catholic Church was saying that only Catholics can "go to heaven", because only Catholics go to formal confession. That excludes all other Christians, not to mention Buddhists, Muslims, etc. It isn't that I ever had any qualms about going to confession, but I just think it's a wrong concept. Therefore, I do not accept it, but it has nothing to do with a smorgasbord approach.

That's a good example, it's not coherent, it has a bolted on feel about it like somebody thought it would be a good idea to tell people that to make them more easily conform.

A good example of this from the Buddhist canon is where the Buddha is supposed to have said something along the lines of "because I've allowed women to become nuns Buddhism will not last as long", it feels bolted on to me, not in keeping the rest of what we know about the Buddha, so I don't blindly accept it.

That's not just picking and choosing, that's using common sense discernment. Of course neither of these are core teachings, they aren't a big deal to leave aside and it's more problematic when some core teachings don't seem coherent with others, often that could be the result of misunderstanding some of those core teachings.

[rockyysdt]

Yet both beauty and riches are sought after and admired by many. That either can also cause suffering is irrelevant.

When we look at rich people we see that they rarely are happy.

Do not forget that there are four kinds of karma....

positive..bringing a positive result

negative bringing a negative result

both positive and negative bringing a both positive and negative result

neither positive nor negative...bringing no result....neutral karma...an Arahant only produces this kind of karma

I just wanted to point out that being given beauty doesn't appear to be a positive result for not being turbulent.

In fact the apparent reward is a trap for either suffering or generation of negative karma.

Wouldn't a better positive result have been to be given patience, or honesty, or integrity, or empathy, or kindness?

Isn't the reward of beauty something you'd give someone who is vain or self absorbed?

After all, whether one is ugly or beautiful is of no consequence, it's whether one has attachment or aversion to such things.

This makes: If a person is not wrathful or turbulent, is not irritated even by a torrent of abuse, does not give vent to anger, ill will and resentment, he, as a result of his amiability, when born amongst mankind,will become beautiful, appear flawed.

Edited February 24, 2011 by rockyysdt

[canuckamuck]

^^ One should keep in mind that Catholicism and Christianity are not different words for the same thing. The Catholics have created an elaborate religion which in some ways conflicts with the Bible. There are Catholics who are good Christians, but also many Catholics who have little understanding of the Bible and identify more with the rituals and tradition.

Edited February 24, 2011 by canuckamuck

[canuckamuck]

Yes some Christians pick and choose, that's a shame. But have we ever seen Buddhists pick and choose? Yes, I think we have.

...

I see that it is considered a flaw if in our Theology there are things that not fully understood (ie, slavery) but in Buddhism, although there is disagreement at nearly every step between adherents, this is considered progressive.

Sounds like you are making a case for compatability on the basis that people of both faiths pick and choose and people of both faiths have disagreements between adherents.

Commonality not compatablity.

[rockyysdt]

Christians don't have a problem with the Old Testament. Most pastor's preach from both, usually in the same message. Yes some Christians pick and choose, that's a shame. But have we ever seen Buddhists pick and choose? Yes, I think we have. We also don't have a problem with things unraveling.

I find most Christians I speak to are either not aware of Gods word (Old Testament) or completely ignore it.

Christianity encompasses the same God described in the Old Testament but with some changes including the replacement of blood sacrifices with Jesus sacrifice.

The Christian God is presented with a duel personality.

He is all loving, but make a mistake, with his unforgiving and vengeful nature, will smite you for eternity.

Deuteronomy 13

⁶If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

⁹But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. ¹⁰And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Deuteronomy 23:1-2

No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation.

Alternatively, putting re birth and karma aside, Buddhism teaches practices and techniques with which one can take control of ones life, enabling one to be free from the control of random thought, and subconscious conditioning.

And where is Gabriele's Gates?

Angel Gabriel, blowing his trumpet at the Pearly Gates.

I see that it is considered a flaw if in our Theology there are things that not fully understood (ie, slavery) but in Buddhism, although there is disagreement at nearly every step between adherents, this is considered progressive.

What is there to understand C?

The scriptures are quite clear.

They describe God and his thoughts in great detail.

If there is disagreement, this is with God, as he details the way quite clearly.

The dilemma is that those who don't follow his every word will be damned to eternal suffering in hell.

On the other hand, after digesting the content of the Old Testament in detail, does this sound like the work of the Almighty?

Edited February 24, 2011 by rockyysdt

[canuckamuck]

Christians don't have a problem with the Old Testament. Most pastor's preach from both, usually in the same message. Yes some Christians pick and choose, that's a shame. But have we ever seen Buddhists pick and choose? Yes, I think we have. We also don't have a problem with things unraveling.

I find most Christians I speak to are either not aware of Gods word (Old Testament) or completely ignore it.

Christianity encompasses the same God described in the Old Testament but with some changes including the replacement of blood sacrifices with Jesus sacrifice.

The Christian God is presented with a duel personality.

He is all loving, but make a mistake, with his unforgiving and vengeful nature, will smite you for eternity.

Deuteronomy 13

⁶If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

⁹But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. ¹⁰And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Deuteronomy 23:1-2

No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation.

Alternatively, putting re birth and karma aside, Buddhism teaches practices and techniques with which one can take control of ones life, enabling one to be free from the control of random thought, and subconscious conditioning.

And where is Gabriele's Gates?

Angel Gabriel, blowing his trumpet at the Pearly Gates.

I see that it is considered a flaw if in our Theology there are things that not fully understood (ie, slavery) but in Buddhism, although there is disagreement at nearly every step between adherents, this is considered progressive.

What is there to understand C?

The scriptures are quite clear.

They describe God and his thoughts in great detail.

If there is disagreement, this is with God, as he details the way quite clearly.

The dilemma is that those who don't follow his every word will be damned to eternal suffering in hell.

On the other hand, after digesting the content of the Old Testament in detail, does this sound like the work of the Almighty?

There is a lot you don't know about Christianity and especially the Old Testament, your posts speak volumes about this. Because you have made too many errors to address easily, some of them repeatedly, and I am sure most here are tired of my detailed corrections. I will simply say this: I see you think God is an angry God, that is too bad. Maybe someday you will investigate your opinion to see if it might be too hastily constructed. Clearly your study to this point has been piecemeal at best.

If this was a religious studies forum, I would address your post fully, but the mods here have already been more than patient with my alternative views.

[Xangsamhua]

A very readable, informative and somewhat different perspective on the Hebrew Bible is Jack Miles's God: A Biography. I would recommend it even to those not normally interested in these things. There's a reference to it and some of the other things people are talking about here: http://godwillbegod..../03/17/judaism/ .

Jack Miles writes about God as a character in a story. The story is found in the Hebrew Bible and, hence, apart from whatever else it may be, it is a literary work (or collection of them really). Miles's approach is somewhat iconoclastic (though there's nothing inherently wrong in treating the Old Testament as a literary work, which it is, after all), but it is based on sound scholarship. Miles graduated from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and then gained a doctorate from Harvard in Near Eastern Studies. He is currently Distinguished Professor of English and Religious Studies at the University of California, Irvine, and is a practising Episcopalian (Anglican).

PS. He has also written about the Christ of the Gospels in his book Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God.

Edited February 24, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[rockyysdt]

There is a lot you don't know about Christianity and especially the Old Testament, your posts speak volumes about this. Because you have made too many errors to address easily, some of them repeatedly, and I am sure most here are tired of my detailed corrections. I will simply say this: I see you think God is an angry God, that is too bad. Maybe someday you will investigate your opinion to see if it might be too hastily constructed. Clearly your study to this point has been piecemeal at best.

If this was a religious studies forum, I would address your post fully, but the mods here have already been more than patient with my alternative views.

Please do not take my posts personally.

I respect your stance and will refrain from posting on this specific subject, other than to say:

Some of my points are repeated as they weren't directly answered.

My study only appears piecemeal due to my focus (concern) on scripture which has unacceptable elements.

Acceptable parts of scripture I accept, however the word of God must be taken in its entirety.

No one has ever satisfactorily addressed the extreme nature of so many passages found in scripture.

These seem to conflict when compared to the five precepts of Buddhism:

I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.

I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

Edited February 24, 2011 by rockyysdt

[canuckamuck]

Please do not take my posts personally.

I respect your stance and will refrain from posting on this specific subject, other than to say:

Some of my points are repeated as they weren't directly answered.

My study only appears piecemeal due to my focus (concern) on scripture which has unacceptable elements.

Acceptable parts of scripture I accept, however the word of God must be taken in its entirety.

No one has ever satisfactorily addressed the extreme nature of so many passages found in scripture.

These seem to conflict when compared to the five precepts of Buddhism:

I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.

I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

I am not taking anything personally, your issue is with God, not me. But please understand that I don't know what you do or don't know about the topic. And it is way off topic for me to give a survey of the OT to you just so I can satisfactorily answer your question.

Christians in general accept the entirety of the OT as the word of God penned by men through the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit. The argument that we ignore parts of it is a bit of a straw man. What may be true is that there is a lot of the OT that is no longer culturally relevant and is so old that we have trouble relating to it in our modern age. Some of the OT was specific for the Jews at a specific time and place. Some of it transcends time and is very useful in discussing modern issues.

If you overlook the first precept, like 99.9% of Buddhists do, then the other 4 precepts are consistent with Christianity.

[lungmi]

Is common sense compatible with people who believe religion or a philosophy like christianism or buddhism ?

Just live in peace with any other people around you and you'll be fine with the ticket to the nirvana.

BTW, I'm an atheist.

You are atheist like me and you understand the basic Teaching of the Buddha.

But common sense can be a trap too.

Many people with "common sense" are advocates of the Death Penalty.

Edited February 24, 2011 by lungmi