Are Buddhism and Christianity compatible or mutually exclusive?

[phetaroi]

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

The death penalty is a whole OTHER matter, and I have a difficult time trying to see why you are bringing it into the discussion.

And, BTW, what's the old saying -- common sense is neither common nor sensical.

[healthcaretaker]

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.

What is Death Penalty ?

[Xangsamhua]

Hi X.

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

Rocky, my scriptural knowledge is far from extensive. I just have a good collection of books to refer to. Many, many people know their scripture better than me, especially evangelical Protestants. As Canuckamuck pointed out, many Catholics have a limited knowledge of the Bible, as it was viewed by the Church with some apprehension prior to the mid-1940's, and Catholics tend to place the tradition and teaching authority of the pope and bishops above the scriptures (which need expertise to interpret properly).

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

I believe that all Christians accept that the Bible is "inspired" by God. Those who don't are either quasi-Christians or post-Christians.

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.

I doubt this is prophecy. If Vermes, a Jewish (formerly Catholic) scholar, is right, it's simply part of the script in a conventional Talmudic dialogue. It seems to me to be fundamentally acceptable to any of the Abrahamic religions: God "speaks" his creation into existence.

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

The God of the OT and Jesus's God is manifested in different ways. God presents himself in different ways in both the OT and the NT. I suggest you get hold of Jack Miles's books

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

Well, Matthew has him saying that, but remember, Matthew's community was a Jewish Christian one somewhere near the Syrian border and they were locked in struggle with the pharisees/rabbis post AD70 for their right to remain within the synagogue. Hence, Matthew presents Jesus as a Moses-like figure, committed to the Law (though with a more compassionate and flexible approach to it) and with no time at all for the gentiles (Matthew 10: 5-6 and 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.")

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

The early Christians tried to see the major events in Jesus' life within the models of and in fulfilment of the traditional faith and its prophecies. That's all they had to go by, and the Hebrew scriptures served as their scriptures in the early days until in the 2nd century they arrived at something close to the eventual canon. Jesus as sacrificial lamb is a pretty hard metaphor for modern people to stomach, but the early Christians up to the Middle Ages seemed comfortable with it. It began to lose value as a model and metaphor with the breakdown of feudalism and its moral code.

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

Yes, well, let's not get too literal. That kind of suggestion drives jihadists, and we've got enough of them already.

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

There are different ways of viewing and defining worship. Leading an ethical life is a very effective form of worship in the sense that it acknowledges the worth of God's creatures and all creation. Micah, after all, said "... and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6: 8) And in the book of Amos, God said "I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies." (Amos 5: 21)

I would think that a significant difference between Buddhism and Christianity is that the latter is a faith, whereas Buddhism is a philosophy of life and a methodology. However, many Buddhists probably see their religion as a faith.

Cheers.

Xangsamhua

Edited February 25, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[canuckamuck]

Xang, thanks for filing in some details for Rocky, I agree with much of it; even though you approach the subject from the academic angle and rely greatly on historical opinions.

In this heavily studied subject, I find it is possible to find an author to have proof for nearly any hypothesis, pro or con. I admit I have developed is mistrust of historical literature since I was forced to attend so many art history courses in university. I find historians often prefer to prove their own opinions rather than to let the facts speak for themselves. Not true about all of them I am sure, but there sure is a lot of opinions out there that are unquantifiable. There is a lot of pressure on these guys to produce books with ground breaking discoveries.

Anyhow, since you have the knowledge of the books, I appreciate seeing what academia has to offer.

[christiaan]

I am astonished, to some extend, nobody is touching or answering my remarks about the incompatibillity of Buddhism and Christianity.

Not that I am thinking I am entitled to have an answer or meaningfull reaction, I just wonder why this is (not) occuring.

The situation is that it is a fact that Buddhism seem to reject the existence of the Self and the I, where Christianity - and most modern thinking - is all about the Self, the soul and the I.

So, when these are the facts, why ramble around with all descriptions and explanations and cultural comparisons about what did follow out of the teachings of Buddha and the teachings of the Bible?

Lets just forgot , when people are involved overhere out of that reason, any kind of competition, and stay for a while with the facts that show the essential and meaningfull difference.

Or am I asking too much?

Or do I see facts that are not there?

[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.

What is Death Penalty ?

When a human court based on a human made Constitution has the right to kill because he judges that someone is guilty to be killed. This is why Thailand has to make a step forwards to Buddhism and abolish the Death Penalty. Kampuchea did it, EU laywers

helped in 1981 for the Constitution.

[Xangsamhua]

Xang, thanks for filing in some details for Rocky, I agree with much of it; even though you approach the subject from the academic angle and rely greatly on historical opinions.

In this heavily studied subject, I find it is possible to find an author to have proof for nearly any hypothesis, pro or con. I admit I have developed is mistrust of historical literature since I was forced to attend so many art history courses in university. I find historians often prefer to prove their own opinions rather than to let the facts speak for themselves. Not true about all of them I am sure, but there sure is a lot of opinions out there that are unquantifiable. There is a lot of pressure on these guys to produce books with ground breaking discoveries.

Anyhow, since you have the knowledge of the books, I appreciate seeing what academia has to offer.

Yes, one has to acknowledge "critical belief" as well as "critical doubt". I have written on that with respect to Matthew Ch 23 and will post you the link (if it's still on the net).

Sometimes a person can go right through critical approaches and end up where they started. A friend of mine was a barrister, very analytically minded, then did an academic theology degree and masters and was ordained into the Anglican Church (in Canada). He'd lapped up Burton Mack and all the radical revisionists, but ended up more or less satisfied with the Gospels as they are. The pope has a remarkable intellect - quite overwhelming in fact, which is largely masked by his former role at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. He knows the critiques, but sticks with the record. Bishop Tom Wright, author of a 700+ page scholarly work on the Resurrection, is another. In the more popular domain, an author I have enjoyed very much - Philip Yancey - is similar. Jack Miles remains a practising member of the Church - now Episcopalian, as is Marcus Borg, another prominent revisionist.

So, although I sit with the radical revisionists, I'm quite aware that scholars can get locked into paradigms and find it very hard to shift. Still, having said that, after so many years of growing disillusion with the institutional church, I'd be very reluctant to accept anything on faith again.

[canuckamuck]

I am astonished, to some extend, nobody is touching or answering my remarks about the incompatibillity of Buddhism and Christianity.

Not that I am thinking I am entitled to have an answer or meaningfull reaction, I just wonder why this is (not) occuring.

The situation is that it is a fact that Buddhism seem to reject the existence of the Self and the I, where Christianity - and most modern thinking - is all about the Self, the soul and the I.

So, when these are the facts, why ramble around with all descriptions and explanations and cultural comparisons about what did follow out of the teachings of Buddha and the teachings of the Bible?

Lets just forgot , when people are involved overhere out of that reason, any kind of competition, and stay for a while with the facts that show the essential and meaningfull difference.

Or am I asking too much?

Or do I see facts that are not there?

I think your points on the incompatibility of Buddhism and Christianity were correct, when you were speaking of the treatment of self by either camp. Sorry I didn't comment.

I disagree with your point that the end of awareness is Hell though. If Hell is torment then one must be aware to experience it.

Also I think it would be hard to find a mainstream or fundamental Christian org that accepts reincarnation, although the ancient Jews appeared undecided on the subject. So in this instance too there is an impasse.

[phetaroi]

I am astonished, to some extend, nobody is touching or answering my remarks about the incompatibillity of Buddhism and Christianity.

Not that I am thinking I am entitled to have an answer or meaningfull reaction, I just wonder why this is (not) occuring.

The situation is that it is a fact that Buddhism seem to reject the existence of the Self and the I, where Christianity - and most modern thinking - is all about the Self, the soul and the I.

So, when these are the facts, why ramble around with all descriptions and explanations and cultural comparisons about what did follow out of the teachings of Buddha and the teachings of the Bible?

Lets just forgot , when people are involved overhere out of that reason, any kind of competition, and stay for a while with the facts that show the essential and meaningfull difference.

Or am I asking too much?

Or do I see facts that are not there?

In the past day or two I've noticed you reprimanding others for "rambling" (and so forth). I understand your feeling that you need to get back at others for the criticism you have received for your overly wordy posts. You're probably a nice enough guy, but you do go on and on and on, making your posts the longest of any in the forum. In fact, you write more than most of the other regular posters in the forum combined. Perhaps you should take the Reader's Digest approach -- write rough drafts of your posts, then edit them down. More of us would read your posts if they were more concise.

In this particular post I think you miss the point. It seems as if you think that people are not responding to the original issue because most people are not saying, "Yes, the two religions are compatible", or "No, the two religions are not compatible." Most of the posts in this thread -- and I've read them all -- address various issues related to your original question. In point of fact...well, I guess it's more in point of opinion...there are aspects of Buddhism and Christianity that are compatible, and there are aspects of both that are incompatible. They're not carbon copies of each other, because if they were, there would be just one. For example, there are broad similarities between the Ten Commandments and the Noble Eightfold Path; but, on the other hand, if you're a Christian and disobey the Commandments, then you have sinned and will pay a penalty for it, a penalty that will be determined by God. If you violate one of the concepts of the Noble Eightfold Path, you will suffer consequences through karma (action versus reaction).

[christiaan]

I am astonished, to some extend, nobody is touching or answering my remarks about the incompatibillity of Buddhism and Christianity.

Not that I am thinking I am entitled to have an answer or meaningfull reaction, I just wonder why this is (not) occuring.

The situation is that it is a fact that Buddhism seem to reject the existence of the Self and the I, where Christianity - and most modern thinking - is all about the Self, the soul and the I.

So, when these are the facts, why ramble around with all descriptions and explanations and cultural comparisons about what did follow out of the teachings of Buddha and the teachings of the Bible?

Lets just forgot , when people are involved overhere out of that reason, any kind of competition, and stay for a while with the facts that show the essential and meaningfull difference.

Or am I asking too much?

Or do I see facts that are not there?

I think your points on the incompatibility of Buddhism and Christianity were correct, when you were speaking of the treatment of self by either camp. Sorry I didn't comment.

I disagree with your point that the end of awareness is Hell though. If Hell is torment then one must be aware to experience it.

Also I think it would be hard to find a mainstream or fundamental Christian org that accepts reincarnation, although the ancient Jews appeared undecided on the subject. So in this instance too there is an impasse.

I think it is quite obvious everybody reads the question of the topic in its own way. I think I read it as it is, but it turns out one also read this question as: where are Buddhism and Christianity compatible and where are they not? (Is that fruitfull and if so, Why?)

Maybe it could be interesting to look at it from these angles:

1.Suppose "Christians" would accept the view there is no soul and there is no I, what would be the new situation of compatibillity then?

2.Suppose "Buddhists" would accept, now, after 2500 years, a human does have a soul now and an I (a spiritual non physical quality of awareness), actively 'entering' this soul that came to existence in time, what would be the new situation of compatibillity then?

It probably is true mainstream Christian organisation do not accept reincarnation, but there are organised Christians that do.

Allthough I am no member of the organisation I know of I have discovered they are deeply connected to the spiritual meaning of the total of the Bible, and also some other religious texts like the often very esoteric Nag Hammadi texts. They are not "Fundamental" . So the impasse might be in the mainstream but there is not correct to think there is complete impasse.

Those are the facts.

[christiaan]

I am astonished, to some extend, nobody is touching or answering my remarks about the incompatibillity of Buddhism and Christianity.

Not that I am thinking I am entitled to have an answer or meaningfull reaction, I just wonder why this is (not) occuring.

The situation is that it is a fact that Buddhism seem to reject the existence of the Self and the I, where Christianity - and most modern thinking - is all about the Self, the soul and the I.

So, when these are the facts, why ramble around with all descriptions and explanations and cultural comparisons about what did follow out of the teachings of Buddha and the teachings of the Bible?

Lets just forgot , when people are involved overhere out of that reason, any kind of competition, and stay for a while with the facts that show the essential and meaningfull difference.

Or am I asking too much?

Or do I see facts that are not there?

In the past day or two I've noticed you reprimanding others for "rambling" (and so forth). I understand your feeling that you need to get back at others for the criticism you have received for your overly wordy posts. You're probably a nice enough guy, but you do go on and on and on, making your posts the longest of any in the forum. In fact, you write more than most of the other regular posters in the forum combined. Perhaps you should take the Reader's Digest approach -- write rough drafts of your posts, then edit them down. More of us would read your posts if they were more concise.

In this particular post I think you miss the point. It seems as if you think that people are not responding to the original issue because most people are not saying, "Yes, the two religions are compatible", or "No, the two religions are not compatible." Most of the posts in this thread -- and I've read them all -- address various issues related to your original question. In point of fact...well, I guess it's more in point of opinion...there are aspects of Buddhism and Christianity that are compatible, and there are aspects of both that are incompatible. They're not carbon copies of each other, because if they were, there would be just one. For example, there are broad similarities between the Ten Commandments and the Noble Eightfold Path; but, on the other hand, if you're a Christian and disobey the Commandments, then you have sinned and will pay a penalty for it, a penalty that will be determined by God. If you violate one of the concepts of the Noble Eightfold Path, you will suffer consequences through karma (action versus reaction).

Thanks for your answer Phetaroi, where you have critic I consider this to be a constructive contribution.

I am aware I can be overly worded, but keep in mind I am no native English speaker and writer, never had a good English language education and I am not realy used to speak or write English.

Then, I am concerned my contribution are clear to understand (something different as clear to accept or believe) what can make me overly wordy.

In this topic I have not been overly wordy at all I would say, in contrary to - apreciated- long contributions of others so I not only do my best but you can see even then the response is as if people just do not read those posts of mine.

We are often, probably all very busy writing what we like to write our selfs.

I was 'reprimanding' others for rambling, since I have been critisized for it also. I did so becos I think it would be good to have more awareness about the way we handle our critic. I sometimes have the feeling critic like rambling, being out of topic, writing too long mails, and more in that line are often subjectively used in a more compatitive situation of discussing. The fact is that we about all, probably all, are regularly rambling, out of topic and writing long mails when we think we can do. However I think I have never criticized anyone in a personal way. (Correct me when I am wrong)

Back to the topic.

I do not think I miss the point at all.

But that could be due to the way each of us thinks about the meaning of the concept : compatibillity.

So I have to tell how I view this concept; I think compatible here means: one can accept or believe both philosophies or religions being the truth without, in doing so, being logically inconsistent.

Since the question is not; "are they both somewhere compatible and somewhere not, and somewhere excluding and somewhere not" , I would say, with all respect, it might be possible I am more to the point as you are.

And I stated, without being overly worded at all in that case, Buddhisme and Christianity are not compatible, and can not sometimes be or have been compatible, becos when accepting or believing both are in their way the truth, one would be logically inconsistent. (This in relation to the existence of the soul and the I )

I also wrote I think within this context Buddhisme is excluding Christanity, and Christianity is not excluding Buddhisme.

Becos out of the idea of transformation it is possible to accept pure Buddhisme came into the world before Christianity, where Buddhisme excludes Christianity as being part of the future

In my opinion denying this essential difference is not very fruitfull in relation to gaining a state of enlightment / absolute truth.

When people think I have been overly wordy again, please tell me.

learning and becoming more aware is my drive.

* I think Buddha has been one of the greatest humans in human history, certainly at his time in history *

[phetaroi]

...

I do not think I miss the point at all.

But that could be due to the way each of us thinks about the meaning of the concept : compatibillity.

So I have to tell how I view this concept; I think compatible here means: one can accept or believe both philosophies or religions being the truth without, in doing so, being logically inconsistent.

And I stated...Buddhisme and Christianity are not compatible, and can not sometimes be or have been compatible, becos when accepting or believing both are in their way the truth, one would be logically inconsistent. (This in relation to the existence of the soul and the I )

I also wrote I think within this context Buddhisme is excluding Christanity, and Christianity is not excluding Buddhisme.

Becos out of the idea of transformation it is possible to accept pure Buddhisme came into the world before Christianity, where Buddhisme excludes Christianity as being part of the future

In my opinion denying this essential difference is not very fruitfull in relation to gaining a state of enlightment / absolute truth.

...

* I think Buddha has been one of the greatest humans in human history, certainly at his time in history *

I agree, as I'm sure most do in this forum, that Buddha is one of the greatest humans in hisory.

Unfortunately, after a number of moves, I no longer have in my possession the book I'm going to refer to, and therefore I cannot give you the title or the author, although it was a book published by an "approved" Buddhist organization in Thailand. It happened to be the first book on Buddhism I ever picked up, and the preface was the first thing that impressed me. To paraphrase it -- As you read this book see what you can accept. You may be able to accept all of it. Or you may able to accept some things. Perhaps later you will accept other things within after you have had additional experiences and thought about those experiences. Each part of this book can take you further along the path.

And so, when I see some posters here say it is all or nothing at all. My response is bull toddy.

I also say bull toddy to those who seem to believe that the only wisdom in the world is in the Dhamma. There's a lot of proverbial wisdom in the Bible, for example...particularly the New Testament. And some of my purely Christian friends have the same attitude -- it's all or nothing at all. Again, bull toddy.

If I am wiser tomorrow than I am today...I am further along the path. If I am a better person tomorrow than I am today...I am further along the path. If I am a kinder and more generous person tomorrow than I am today...I am further along the path.

Perhaps the question is not so much which religion is "right". Perhaps the real question is what does the ultimate path lead to?

I'd hate to be a Christian who believes it is all or nothing at all, and is then 100% wrong.

I'd hate to be a Buddhist who believes it is all or nothing at all, and is then 100% wrong.

[rockyysdt]

I'd hate to be a Christian who believes it is all or nothing at all, and is then 100% wrong.

I'd hate to be a Buddhist who believes it is all or nothing at all, and is then 100% wrong.

Hi Vince.

I often wonder why people become Christians or Buddhists or Atheists, or even Scientologists.

For sure, some become fanatical, and because of this, overly attached and miss the point.

Many religions require pure faith as you won't know their validity until death.

For me the beauty of Buddhism is, by simply practicing mindfulness with the breathe as an anchor, both sitting and throughout the wakeful day, you start to experience stillness which brings with it a sense of clarity which can only known through experience.

Once you experience this state, you begin to look forward to what else will unfold through practice over time.

Buddhist doctrine may or may not be so, but the brilliance of clarity which comes from practice is a path to look forward to.

The only faith one needs is to devote some time towards practice.

Edited February 26, 2011 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

I'd hate to be a Christian who believes it is all or nothing at all, and is then 100% wrong.

I'd hate to be a Buddhist who believes it is all or nothing at all, and is then 100% wrong.

Hi Vince.

I often wonder why people become Christians or Buddhists or Atheists, or even Scientologists.

For sure, some become fanatical, and because of this, overly attached and miss the point.

Many religions require pure faith as you won't know their validity until death.

For me the beauty of Buddhism is, by simply practicing mindfulness with the breathe as an anchor, both sitting and throughout the wakeful day, you start to experience stillness which brings with it a sense of clarity which can only known through experience.

Once you experience this state, you begin to look forward to what else will unfold through practice over time.

Buddhist doctrine may or may not be so, but the brilliance of clarity which comes from practice is a path to look forward to.

The only faith one needs is to devote some time towards practice.

Hi Rocky,

Yes, I would agree with you that the fanatics of any religion do, often, miss the point. And of course none of us will know the answers to some of mans ultimate questions until "the end"...or, then again, if the true agnostics are correct, we won't know at all! ;-)

I do certainly agree with you...although I'll use a different word...that mindfulness, however it is achieved, can be a beautiful thing. I know that over the years, when I find myself in stressful situations, that mindfulness has often allowed me to set aside a great deal of stress. Sometimes it's the little things -- like pounding the steering wheel and cursing when I was in traffic jams during a long commute (with retirement, in the past) -- that I could eliminate almost entirely. More recently, mindfulness over "right thinking" has helped me pretty much put behind me the worst betrayal of my life (by a Thai, coincidentally).

Of course, I have to admit that Christian prayer has accomplished similar things for my purely Christian friends, but what I prefer (at least usually) is that Buddhist mindfulness puts what should be on my shoulders, on my shoulders.

[AYJAYDEE]

very very well put!!

I'd hate to be a Christian who believes it is all or nothing at all, and is then 100% wrong.

I'd hate to be a Buddhist who believes it is all or nothing at all, and is then 100% wrong.

Hi Vince.

I often wonder why people become Christians or Buddhists or Atheists, or even Scientologists.

For sure, some become fanatical, and because of this, overly attached and miss the point.

Many religions require pure faith as you won't know their validity until death.

For me the beauty of Buddhism is, by simply practicing mindfulness with the breathe as an anchor, both sitting and throughout the wakeful day, you start to experience stillness which brings with it a sense of clarity which can only known through experience.

Once you experience this state, you begin to look forward to what else will unfold through practice over time.

Buddhist doctrine may or may not be so, but the brilliance of clarity which comes from practice is a path to look forward to.

The only faith one needs is to devote some time towards practice.

[canuckamuck]

Many Christians also report there is plenty of evidence in practice.

There is no shortage of people who have turned their lives around after becoming Christians.

[Xangsamhua]

I am astonished, to some extend, nobody is touching or answering my remarks about the incompatibillity of Buddhism and Christianity.

Not that I am thinking I am entitled to have an answer or meaningfull reaction, I just wonder why this is (not) occuring.

The situation is that it is a fact that Buddhism seem to reject the existence of the Self and the I, where Christianity - and most modern thinking - is all about the Self, the soul and the I.

Apologies for the formatting issues in my post above. The editing process stuffed things up. Below is the post again (saved from Word):

Christiaan, I'm not sure that Buddhism, or Buddhists, really do reject the idea of "soul" or"self", if that denotes some underpinning, continuing principle by which human aggregates - the skandas - are organized and integrated. Of course, the aggregates themselves are interdependent and obey the law of dependent origination - they arise and fall away as the result of something. However, that does not necessitate that there is nothing underpinning them, that maintains their continuity and the causative mechanism that sustains arising, falling away and interdependence, it's just that we can't demonstrate it, point to it or talk much about it. Though the Buddha focused on the things we could work with - physical and mental phenomena, rather than noumena that we can only infer, he chose not to engage in imponderable metaphysical issues and discouraged his followers from doing so.

Of course, some of his followers have been unable to resist and have spent much time and ink on sunyata - emptiness - and whether form is emptiness, emptiness form or both synonyms of each other. In a linguistically constructed world, of course, form and emptiness cannot be the same thing; something cannot be both form and formless at the same time. To say that emptiness is a kind of "formed nothing" is to say that it's something. Thich Nhat Hanh's metaphor of the wave (form, phenomenon, skanda) and the sea (emptiness, sunyata), both containing each other, sounds OK, but one could have a waveless sea, but not a sealess wave. One sustains the other.

Perhaps we need to consider use of terms like "self", "soul", "[inter]dependent arising", etc. in the context in which they are being used, rather than as stand-alone terms and concepts.

The "not-self" (anatta) vs "self/soul" distinction between Buddhism and (all?) other religions may not be as clear-cut as it appears. Theologians of other religions are perfectly aware that, in speaking of "soul" there is a point at which they cannot say anything further that is meaningful, and mystics in both the Christian and Islamic traditions have often pointed to contradictions, paradoxes and mystery while still acknowledging an underpinning ground of being.

Incidentally, as we all know, despite its professed rejection of the "self", Buddhists probably focus on the "I"and "me" more than any other religion. Others talk more about God, institutions and other people. I just looked at a page (about 320 words) of Jason Siff's book Unlearning Meditation, in which he speaks both for himself and for a student whose journal he quotes from. In this page, "I", "my" and"me" are used 24 times, "him" and "he" (his student) 6 times; so personal pronouns comprise about one in every eleven words. Is this ironic?

I know Buddhists get around the problem by referring to relative and absolute usages, but what this says to me is that, operationally, Buddhists accept the reality of the self, or soul. Metaphysically, they may not, but I think it's fair to say that Buddhists don't know if there's a soul or underpinning, permanent ground of being. Nor, I suspect, did the Buddha. When approached with these questions, he denied the permanence of forms (phenomena), but no one argues with that. The unanswerable question - unanswerable by cognitive means - is whether there is anything paranormal or supernatural that is permanent. The Buddha, wisely, chose not to go there. Other, faith-based, religions do.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[phetaroi]

...Buddhists accept the reality of the self, or soul. Metaphysically, they may not, but I think it's fair to say that Buddhists don't know if there's a soul or underpinning, permanent ground of being. Nor, I suspect, did the Buddha. When approached with these questions, he denied the permanence of forms (phenomena), but no one argues with that. The unanswerable question - unanswerable by cognitive means - is whether there is anything paranormal or supernatural that is permanent. The Buddha, wisely, chose not to go there. Other, faith-based, religions do.[/size][/font]

I think that's a very good point. I have read in several Thai Buddhist books, and been told in a couple of conversations with Thai Buddhist monks that Buddhism does not address the issue of whether there is a God (to paraphrase) because it cannot be proven one way or the other, and that Buddhist thought therefore begins beyond that discussion. I know that many disagree with that, perhaps most do.

[christiaan]

...

I do not think I miss the point at all.

But that could be due to the way each of us thinks about the meaning of the concept : compatibillity.

So I have to tell how I view this concept; I think compatible here means: one can accept or believe both philosophies or religions being the truth without, in doing so, being logically inconsistent.

And I stated...Buddhisme and Christianity are not compatible, and can not sometimes be or have been compatible, becos when accepting or believing both are in their way the truth, one would be logically inconsistent. (This in relation to the existence of the soul and the I )

I also wrote I think within this context Buddhisme is excluding Christanity, and Christianity is not excluding Buddhisme.

Becos out of the idea of transformation it is possible to accept pure Buddhisme came into the world before Christianity, where Buddhisme excludes Christianity as being part of the future

In my opinion denying this essential difference is not very fruitfull in relation to gaining a state of enlightment / absolute truth.

...

* I think Buddha has been one of the greatest humans in human history, certainly at his time in history *

I agree, as I'm sure most do in this forum, that Buddha is one of the greatest humans in hisory.

Unfortunately, after a number of moves, I no longer have in my possession the book I'm going to refer to, and therefore I cannot give you the title or the author, although it was a book published by an "approved" Buddhist organization in Thailand. It happened to be the first book on Buddhism I ever picked up, and the preface was the first thing that impressed me. To paraphrase it -- As you read this book see what you can accept. You may be able to accept all of it. Or you may able to accept some things. Perhaps later you will accept other things within after you have had additional experiences and thought about those experiences. Each part of this book can take you further along the path.

And so, when I see some posters here say it is all or nothing at all. My response is bull toddy.

I also say bull toddy to those who seem to believe that the only wisdom in the world is in the Dhamma. There's a lot of proverbial wisdom in the Bible, for example...particularly the New Testament. And some of my purely Christian friends have the same attitude -- it's all or nothing at all. Again, bull toddy.

If I am wiser tomorrow than I am today...I am further along the path. If I am a better person tomorrow than I am today...I am further along the path. If I am a kinder and more generous person tomorrow than I am today...I am further along the path.

Perhaps the question is not so much which religion is "right". Perhaps the real question is what does the ultimate path lead to?

I'd hate to be a Christian who believes it is all or nothing at all, and is then 100% wrong.

I'd hate to be a Buddhist who believes it is all or nothing at all, and is then 100% wrong.

I see with your answer it seems we are leaving the topic.

Reading "the book of life" , and within this reading books, one will start to accept some of it or all of it, some later some sooner. Thinking about the experiences of life is the key to accepting life in your way.

I do not bother about "nothing or all" since I do not have any desire to sit on any "chair", because sitting on a Christian chair or a Buddhist chair or any other chair keeps me from seeing the chair I am sitting on.

So to me it is not important to choose wich religion or philosophy, being a theorem, is right or wrong.

It is just having wise questions to gain wisdom by experience and thinking about experience.

And so I think it is important to have an answer to the question of the topic and not too avoid it.

Maybe some people choose to become Buddhists or Christians or any other ...ism to have an identity for their ego, to fullfill the desire to have a name of identity.

[christiaan]

Cannuckamut:

I disagree with your point that the end of awareness is Hell though. If Hell is torment then one must be aware to experience it.

Christiaan:

I hope I did not wrote the end of awareness is Hell, since there is no end to awareness.

I would say the lack of - experiencing awareness- (not 'knowing') - is part of feelings of Hell.

Hell is no punishment by an old man with white beard sitting on a throne.

[christiaan]

Christiaan, I'm not sure that Buddhism, or Buddhists, really do reject the idea of "soul" or"self", if that denotes some underpinning, continuing principle by which human aggregates - the skandas - are organized and integrated. Of course, the aggregates themselves are interdependent and obey the law of dependent origination - they arise and fall away as the result of something. However, that does not necessitate that there is nothing underpinning them, that maintains their continuity and the causative mechanism that sustains arising, falling away and interdependence, it's just that we can't demonstrate it, point to it or talk much about it. Though the Buddha focused on the things we could work with - physical and mental phenomena, rather than noumena that we can only infer, he chose not to engage in imponderable metaphysical issues and discouraged his followers from doing so.

Of course, some of his followers have been unable to resist and have spent much time and ink on sunyata - emptiness - and whether form is emptiness, emptiness form or both synonyms of each other. In a linguistically constructed world, of course, form and emptiness cannot be the same thing; something cannot be both form and formless at the same time. To say that emptiness is a kind of "formed nothing" is to say that it's something. Thich Nhat Hanh's metaphor of the wave (form, phenomenon, skanda) and the sea (emptiness, sunyata), both containing each other, sounds OK, but one could have a waveless sea, but not a sealess wave. One sustains the other.

Perhaps we need to consider use of terms like "self", "soul", "[inter]dependent arising", etc. in the context in which they are being used, rather than as stand-alone terms and concepts.

The "not-self" (anatta) vs "self/soul" distinction between Buddhism and (all?) other religions may not be as clear-cut as it appears. Theologians of other religions are perfectly aware that, in speaking of "soul" there is a point at which they cannot say anything further that is meaningful, and mystics in both the Christian and Islamic traditions have often pointed to contradictions, paradoxes and mystery while still acknowledging an underpinning ground of being.

Incidentally, as we all know, despite its professed rejection of the "self", Buddhists probably focus on the "I"and "me" more than any other religion. Others talk more about God, institutions and other people. I just looked at a page (about 320 words) of Jason Siff's book Unlearning Meditation, in which he speaks both for himself and for a student whose journal he quotes from. In this page, "I", "my" and"me" are used 24 times, "him" and "he" (his student) 6 times; so personal pronouns comprise about one in every eleven words. Is this ironic?

I know Buddhists get around the problem by referring to relative and absolute usages, but what this says to me is that, operationally, Buddhists accept the reality of the self, or soul. Metaphysically, they may not, but I think it's fair to say that Buddhists don't know if there's a soul or underpinning, permanent ground of being. Nor, I suspect, did the Buddha. When approached with these questions, he denied the permanence of forms (phenomena), but no one argues with that. The unanswerable question - unanswerable by cognitive means - is whether there is anything paranormal or supernatural that is permanent. The Buddha, wisely, chose not to go there. Other, faith-based, religions do.

Xangsamhua, you point at something that is, as I wrote before confusing people. When Buddhists themself do not know if they accept or do reject the existence of the soul, some do'nt, some do (where I wonder what is it then that is rejecting the soul?) people can start rambling around with their questions and could find Buddhism contradicting itself. An observation?

With regard to the soul, by observation I can see/experience the soul being my inner activity of will, feeling and thinking. Ido retrospective.

From one side, the side of the physical senses, the life of the physical world enters my soul, from the other side, the side of the spirit, my I enters my soul because it is in that activity the ' I am ' activity, that I become aware of my will, my feeling and thinking.

I would say, by my own experience, where my soul is a reality in earthly physical life - as my physical body is - and depending on it, (my) awareness is not.

Awareness is, free from anything. Awareness is impossible when it would depending on something outside itself.

As far as I can see now Buddhism doesnt 'see' the I , and so does not see awareness independently from physical existence.

As far as I can understand Buddhism tells all is related to the physical existence (?) and so tells to end this to return to the pure non physical state - (without awareness?) - of before, the state of before the creation of the world (before the creation of physical existence at all)

Allthough I do not write this as an absolute statement, but more or less hypothetical, the Bible could tell about " Absolute Awareness" being the origin of the world (God) we only can reach by personal awarenes (Christ) As the Bible reports Jezus tells: one can only come to God by Me . (By being an " I am")

I would say this could illustrate the incompatibillity of Buddhism and Christianity, where it does not tell Buddhism would not have the profound meaning it has for humanity.

And this question of compatibillity is the topic overhere.

[sabaijai]

With regard to the soul, by observation I can see/experience the soul being my inner activity of will, feeling and thinking.

How do you know that what you experience is a 'soul'? According to Buddhist theory, all such these experiences can be traced to the aggregates, without any need to postulate 'soul'.

There are various theories for and against the existence of a 'soul' but in fact no one can empirically prove that it exists.

The lack of empirical evidence doesn't necessarily confirm the Buddhist hypothesis, but it also does not confirm any pro-soul hypothesis, such as the one you have put forth.

[AYJAYDEE]

would it help if we prefaced the word soul with the words "permanent and unchanging"?

With regard to the soul, by observation I can see/experience the soul being my inner activity of will, feeling and thinking.

How do you know that what you experience is a 'soul'? According to Buddhist theory, all such these experiences can be traced to the aggregates, without any need to postulate 'soul'.

There are various theories for and against the existence of a 'soul' but in fact no one can empirically prove that it exists.

The lack of empirical evidence doesn't necessarily confirm the Buddhist hypothesis, but it also does not confirm any pro-soul hypothesis, such as the one you have put forth.

[christiaan]

With regard to the soul, by observation I can see/experience the soul being my inner activity of will, feeling and thinking.

How do you know that what you experience is a 'soul'? According to Buddhist theory, all such these experiences can be traced to the aggregates, without any need to postulate 'soul'.

There are various theories for and against the existence of a 'soul' but in fact no one can empirically prove that it exists.

The lack of empirical evidence doesn't necessarily confirm the Buddhist hypothesis, but it also does not confirm any pro-soul hypothesis, such as the one you have put forth.

I know I experience.

Knowing I am experiencing is soulactvity in itself, it is "being conscious"

The five agragates tell about:

- Form, physical existence, external and internal.

It is a fact I experience my body by my senses, I experience my physical senses in their activity.

The fact that other people can only experience my outer form and I can also experience my inner form my self doesnot mean it then doesnot exist, the fac t that I do experience my inner forms, tells me they do exist.

- I experience my feelings.

The fact that I can only experience my feelings my self and that they cannot realy be experienced by " the other" doesnot mean they do not exist.

- I experience my perceptions, my concepts, my cognitions and discriminations and so on.

The fact is also here that since I can only experience them as realities within myself doesnot mean they do not exist.

- I experience my mental formations, being my mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions and so on.

As long as the 'objects' do trigger my mental formations then I am in an almost animal consciousness, I would be in the same state as humans were at the time of revelations, normally thousands of years ago. I however, in modern times , can meet the experience of form, with my spritual 'I am' activity, what gives me more and more freedom in my decision to deal with an 'object'.

This is where one, by example, can see a human sacrifice his or her life for another human as we could learn out of the event of the Australian boy who sacrificed his life so his brother could be saved from drowning

The experience of mental formations, the general and the specific I call mine, are only to be experienced by myself within myself in actuality and reality, what is happening within a(nother) human is in fact a 'secret' to the 'outer' world.

- Consciousness, and in modern times within transformed human existence on earth 'awareness' , can certainly only be experienced by myself, within a self. This is when somebody tells : ' I am' - (aware).

Consciousness and awareness are inner experiences, spiritual activity inside the soul, nobody can use the expression ' I am ' for anything else as for the inner experience of self.

Within experiencing the 5 agregates by a self , they are empirical existent in the self.

When does an ' I am" needs prove for its existence?

When there is none, or when it is to weak? as we can see within primary autistic children?

One could wonder if a strong emphasizing of ego - within 'normal' people - is explained by the 'absence' ,of , or a weak or impaired ' I am'

Within the experience of soul activity and the active experience of 'I am' there is actual empirical prove of it, the 'I am' awareness is not depending on anything else beside itself, at the moment we wake up and realise ' I am awake ' the fact itself is a fact and does not need any proof.

To think it does need a proof might be thinking it needs some physical proof, and that is what can be called : material thinking.

Without a soul and an I, we would have the impossible situation(?) the writing would write its writings, the thinking would think its thoughts, the feeling would feel its feelings, the saw would saw the kerfs, the hammer would hammer the nails. But we all know they cannot do by themself.

When we, however, would stay away from aproaching this in a "Who is wrong, or Who is right", or ' wich religion , or philosophy is the best ' attitude , I would say the facts show, to my opinion, as far as it came to my understanding, the ' I am ' is an actual fact within Christian thinking, as it is not - even denied - within Buddhist thinking, so this shows they are essentially not compatible . (and this is the question of the topic overhere)

Then, comparing - originally Christian- culture in Europe, with the Bhuddist culture of Thailand, one could study if the differences in thinking do reflect themself in both cultures with regard to personal responsibillity.

But that would be another topic.

[christiaan]

would it help if we prefaced the word soul with the words "permanent and unchanging"?

With regard to the soul, by observation I can see/experience the soul being my inner activity of will, feeling and thinking.

How do you know that what you experience is a 'soul'? According to Buddhist theory, all such these experiences can be traced to the aggregates, without any need to postulate 'soul'.

There are various theories for and against the existence of a 'soul' but in fact no one can empirically prove that it exists.

The lack of empirical evidence doesn't necessarily confirm the Buddhist hypothesis, but it also does not confirm any pro-soul hypothesis, such as the one you have put forth.

I do not think it would help, since Buddhism and Christianity both tell, the soul is not a permanent and unchanging quality.

[Xangsamhua]

To backtrack a little and extend the discussion of what "Christianity" is (i.e. what we are comparing "Buddhism" with), the following data may be interesting.

542 Australian Catholic priests responded to a recent survey by two academics on the priestly life. Among their responses:

Only 19.2 per cent thought it sinful for married couples to use birth control.

Almost 70 per cent thought abortion was always a sin but only 40.2 per cent said the same of sex before marriage. More than 70 per cent thought celibacy for priests should be optional and several priests made ''no secret of the fact they were in long-term committed relationships with women''.

http://www.cathnews....aspx?aeid=25213

These are Roman Catholic priests, remember, most of whom would be around 60 years old or so, so they know what they're talking about. Who would say their "Christianity" is not legitimate or valid, but in these respects it differs greatly from the "official position".

Religion, like anything else, is fluid and multi-faceted, yet often one reads comments that suggest it is fixed - reified - often as what the poster remembers from childhood and youth or gathers from a passing experience with somebody or something.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[Brucenkhamen]

Religion, like anything else, is fluid and multi-faceted, yet often one reads comments that suggest it is fixed - reified - often as what the poster remembers from childhood and youth or gathers from a passing experience with somebody or something.

You are of course correct that religion is fluid and multi faceted, however the examples given are merely moral or administrative which of course can more easily be changed.

If those same priests were asked something along the lines of "Do you believe that if somebody does not accept Jesus as lord and saviour their permanent soul will be destined to spend eternity seperated from god in some hellfire and brimstone type state?" the results of that would be much more telling. Of course this is the most obvious thing that creates separation between the beleivers and the damned (aka us), more so than whether priests can marry etc.

Of course as Canuck has already mentioned the Catholic church doesn't represent the full spectrum of Christianity either.

[Brucenkhamen]

I do not think it would help, since Buddhism and Christianity both tell, the soul is not a permanent and unchanging quality.

Evidence please.

[Xangsamhua]

You are of course correct that religion is fluid and multi faceted, however the examples given are merely moral or administrative which of course can more easily be changed.

I don't think the pope would agree that magisterial teaching re contraception and abortion is "merely moral or administrative". In fact, re contraception, Pope Paul VI would not allow it to be discussed at the Second Vatican Council and then rejected the findings of his own commission set up to advise him on whether in some circumstances contraception could be condoned by the Church. With regard to abortion, the Vatican position is just about immovable.

If those same priests were asked something along the lines of "Do you believe that if somebody does not accept Jesus as lord and saviour their permanent soul will be destined to spend eternity seperated from god in some hellfire and brimstone type state?" the results of that would be much more telling. Of course this is the most obvious thing that creates separation between the beleivers and the damned (aka us), more so than whether priests can marry etc.

I'm confident a clear majority of the priests surveyed would not accept that statement.

Of course as Canuck has already mentioned the Catholic church doesn't represent the full spectrum of Christianity either.

I'm not sure if there is a spectrum any more. I think the Reformation destroyed the linearity necessary for a spectrum. Now it's more like a planetary system, with some planets in overlapping orbits and others forever, or for the foreseeable future, in parallel ones.

Although I've nitpicked your examples, I must say that I agree with the spirit of your comments. There are core teachings and peripheral ones, I think, though some people would not agree with me.

In fact, it's a good question as to how much one can pick and choose. Who is to decide, for example, what is core and what is peripheral? Can a Christian disbelieve in angels? Or teaching about angels (what they are made of; their origin and purpose; how they are organised ("thrones", "dominions", "powers")), etc.? Is an Arian a Christian? Is an evolutionist a Christian?

It's all up for grabs, really, other than a core belief that Jesus, either in himself or by his teachings is salvific. That is, his birth, life and death have very special significance, and his teachings, if followed, lead to "salvation" in some way. "Liberation" may be a better word.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[christiaan]

To backtrack a little and extend the discussion of what "Christianity" is (i.e. what we are comparing "Buddhism" with), the following data may be interesting.

542 Australian Catholic priests responded to a recent survey by two academics on the priestly life. Among their responses:

Only 19.2 per cent thought it sinful for married couples to use birth control.

Almost 70 per cent thought abortion was always a sin but only 40.2 per cent said the same of sex before marriage. More than 70 per cent thought celibacy for priests should be optional and several priests made ''no secret of the fact they were in long-term committed relationships with women''.

http://www.cathnews....aspx?aeid=25213

These are Roman Catholic priests, remember, most of whom would be around 60 years old or so, so they know what they're talking about. Who would say their "Christianity" is not legitimate or valid, but in these respects it differs greatly from the "official position".

Religion, like anything else, is fluid and multi-faceted, yet often one reads comments that suggest it is fixed - reified - often as what the poster remembers from childhood and youth or gathers from a passing experience with somebody or something.

intersting contribution but is it on topic?