Are Buddhism and Christianity compatible or mutually exclusive?

[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.

intersting contribution but is it on topic?

It's been a meandering discussion so far, Christiaan, but I think it's on-topic. The question is: Are Buddhism and Christianity compatible or mutually exclusive?

The relevance of my post lies in the following:

1. To assess compatibility we must compare the two entities (nouns, categories).

2. The two entities are fluid, changing, not fixed.

3. My post provides some examples of fluidity and change in the thinking of key office holders in the largest and possibly most "united" mainstream Christian church (though the unity masks multitudes of differences).

4. How does one answer the OP's question when the goalposts keep shifting?

5. Buddhism is a noun-free zone in regard to absolutes, fixed entities. Sabaijai gave a delightful example of that in another thread.

Jacob thinks about Abbot Enomoto's questions at their one meeting.

"Doctor, do you believe in the soul's existence?"

Marinus prepares, the clerk expects, an erudite and arcane reply. "Yes."

"Then where" —Jacbon indicates the pious, profane skeleton— "is it?"

"The soul is a verb." He impales a lit candle on a spike. "Not a noun."

http://www.thaivisa....-without-nouns/

6. Buddhism, or at least some schools, is not into dualities either. When the discussion reaches the limit of its capacity for reduction there is no duality between Buddhism and Christianity - only absurdity (reductio ad absurdum) which requires us to start the discussion all over again. "Nothing exists; therefore what is this nothing?

7. Ignoring ontology, soteriology, etc. one may compare these shifting entities at the level of practice. If, when it comes to the crunch, Buddhism and Christianity are for most people really about practice as a means of achieving liberation from suffering, in this life or the next, then it's noticeable that the areas in which the priests most noticeably deviate from the official teaching are areas of practice - birth control, abortion, celibacy, sex before marriage, lifelong adherence to vows. These are all reactions to commands and disciplines that are said to be consistent with one's "true nature" (ontology) and will help to avoid one's own or others' suffering. Buddhists have diverse views on these matters and so do Christians. How do you compare them?

[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?

It's been a meandering discussion so far, Christiaan, but I think it's on-topic. The question is: Are Buddhism and Christianity compatible or mutually exclusive?

The relevance of my post lies in the following:

1. To assess compatibility we must compare the two entities (nouns, categories).

2. The two entities are fluid, changing, not fixed.

3. My post provides some examples of fluidity and change in the thinking of key office holders in the largest and possibly most "united" mainstream Christian church (though the unity masks multitudes of differences).

4. How does one answer the OP's question when the goalposts keep shifting?

5. Buddhism is a noun-free zone in regard to absolutes, fixed entities. Sabaijai gave a delightful example of that in another thread.

Jacob thinks about Abbot Enomoto's questions at their one meeting.

"Doctor, do you believe in the soul's existence?"

Marinus prepares, the clerk expects, an erudite and arcane reply. "Yes."

"Then where" —Jacbon indicates the pious, profane skeleton— "is it?"

"The soul is a verb." He impales a lit candle on a spike. "Not a noun."

http://www.thaivisa....-without-nouns/

6. Buddhism, or at least some schools, is not into dualities either. When the discussion reaches the limit of its capacity for reduction there is no duality between Buddhism and Christianity - only absurdity (reductio ad absurdum) which requires us to start the discussion all over again. "Nothing exists; therefore what is this nothing?

7. Ignoring ontology, soteriology, etc. one may compare these shifting entities at the level of practice. If, when it comes to the crunch, Buddhism and Christianity are for most people really about practice as a means of achieving liberation from suffering, in this life or the next, then it's noticeable that the areas in which the priests most noticeably deviate from the official teaching are areas of practice - birth control, abortion, celibacy, sex before marriage, lifelong adherence to vows. These are all reactions to commands and disciplines that are said to be consistent with one's "true nature" (ontology) and will help to avoid one's own or others' suffering. Buddhists have diverse views on these matters and so do Christians. How do you compare them?

I always apreciate your contributions Xangsamhua, they show effort in thinking and support dialogue.

I like the verb: meandering.

Sometimes meandering seem to be called : Rambling. Meandering however is less subjective and more living.

I ofcourse do think your contribution is on topic but it has the danger ' to meander away '.

I think it was in one of the first contributions that I wrote/explained that it is very complicated to see if Buddhism and Christianity are compatible when we not first would define what is to understand when we talk about 'Buddhism' and when we talk about 'Christianity'

Only then we can compare and see if they are compatible.

Is it helpfull to see and write these two entities are fluid, changing and not fixed?

By all what I did read from other contributors overhere I have the idea it is possible several will not agree with you Buddhism is fluid, changing and not fixed.

In general the interpretations of the teachings of Buddha do not show it is considered to have those characteristics.

The Roman Catholic Church is only changing, fluid and showing it is not fixed.... after the evidences that show they are wrong with their dogma's have been accepted by the world for a considerable time.

Do you know when the Roman Catholic Church officially accepted the world is not flat but a Globe???? Realy bizar.

So I realy wonder if the two entities are fluid and so on, I would say, the people (within) are but not those entities, they probably will 'die of ' .

But there surely is a big range in diversity.

Your post shows the personal thinking, the autonomous thinking outside the concepts of Roman Catholic Christianity, of key office holders in the Catholic Church and it shows the 'Swan Song' of this Catholic Church has started (some time ago).

I would say there is some explanation needed with this delightfull example about Jacob especially since it is from Sabaijia for we could read he wrote: there is no soul. It is a part out of a relatively new book of David Mitchel. There is some critic about it being too much of a mix. Then this cited story tells

The Abbot Enomoto tells he believes in the existence of a soul (!) but not as an independent unity (?) but as a working power.

I would say it is possible the story cited is used just to be supportive to a certain opinion.

Maybe it is interesting to read another text, as I understand a Christian text. This one is out of the Nag Hammadi, out of an Apocryphon, writings that where meant to be "secret teachings" (gnosis) This is out of the Apocryphon of James. These writings are almost 2000 years old and no 'novel'

< Because it is not the flesh which yearns for the soul. For without the soul the body does not sin, just as the soul is not saved without the Spirit. But if the soul is saved when it is without evil, and if the spirit also is saved, then the body becomes sinless. For it is the spirit which animates the soul, but it is the body which kills it - that is, it is the soul which kills itself. Truly I say to you, the Father will not forgive the sin of the soul at all, nor the guilt of the flesh. For none of those who have worn the flesh will be saved. For do you imagine that many have found the Kingdom of Heaven? Blessed is the one who has seen himself as a fourth one in Heaven." When we heard these things, we became distressed. Now when he saw that we were distressed, he said: "This is why I say this to you, that you may know yourselves. >

I do not write this to proof something , just to illustrate overhere, within that "Christian framework" the soul is -also - considered to be a noun.

The fact that Buddhism is not - always - into dualities, shows how fluid, changeable and non fixed Buddhism can be despite what fundamentalist might tell (!?)

Buddhism and Christianity are however both part of our - impernament - world of dualities. I see no need for reduction of Buddhism and Cristianity, it is important to see essential - and sometimes essential different - characteristics.

Out of my opinion, as illustrated in my contributions before, it is just realy completely impossible to state nothing exists and then to have a question out of this absolute non existence. Please people, when nothing exists, what is there to have a question???

Buddhism and Cristianity are for most people realy about practice as a means of achieving liberation, I agree, the question however is: are they becoming free, liberated, this way ?

Roman Catholic priests deviate from the official teachings becos they see the dogmatice nature of them, they see they are not fruitfull, they see their Church loses members and in not too long time they will be out of their job. Priests often have become to be social workers.

The reactions of Roman Catholic Priest do show a new, a transforming, transcending, ontology, a new theorem of being.

We could identify the diverse views of Buddhists and Christians and doing so we can become aware of the essence of the both phenomena and when we have become aware of these essences we can see if they are compatible.

When we can see both phenomena are both true without being logically inconsistent, they are compatible.

When we can see both phenoma are ' taken together in their specific truth' logically inconsistent, they are not compatible.

Out of what I read and understand by now is that when interpretations of Buddhism denies te existence of the soul and , even more important, the I, they are excluding what seems to be of main importance in Christianity.

When Buddhism tells the conditions (themself) are neither soul, nor self , nor I, just like the saw is not te sawyer and the hammer not the carpenter, then there still would be some space to see if there is some compatibillity in agreeing there could be an entity that does exist not depending on the 'physical' conditions but manifesting itself by 'physical' conditions in a physical world. A manifestation called ' life '.

[sabaijai]

6. Buddhism, or at least some schools, is not into dualities either. When the discussion reaches the limit of its capacity for reduction there is no duality between Buddhism and Christianity - only absurdity (reductio ad absurdum) which requires us to start the discussion all over again. "Nothing exists; therefore what is this nothing?

Or put another way by the Dalai Lama, "The existence of things is not in dispute, it is the manner in which they exist that must be clarified," and that "existence can only be understood in terms of dependent origination," ie no thing or being exists independently of other beings or things.

Theravada Buddhism differs on this point in that the priority is not so much to clarify the existence of things vs the non-existence of things (the latter being one distinct line of inquiry in academic Western philosophy), but rather to pose a solution to the existential dilemma, ie that that which exists - whatever its nature - has no owner, no permanency and no ultimate satisfaction.

However there is an elucidation of paramattha dhamma -- ultimate realties -- that is quite detailed, should anyone here be bothered to read it Not seamless, but then no theory of either physics or philosophy is.

In moral and ethical levels, Buddhism and Christianity share many commonalities. In their response to the existential dilemma, they differ on most major points.

Are B & C compatible? Philosophically speaking, it's an academic judgement call for the individual. Surely the two religions, in their great variety of interpretations, co-exist quite well for the most part.

When I practised satipatthana vipassana at Wat Bowonniwet many years ago, three of my fellow students were Jesuit priests who had been there at least a year. They found the two belief systems very compatible.

No one can definitively pronounce either compatibility or mutual exclusivity. It's all in the eye of the beholder, like most speculation about reality.

[Brucenkhamen]

...

No one can definitively pronounce either compatibility or mutual exclusivity. It's all in the eye of the beholder, like most speculation about reality.

I think this post summarises the issue quite clearly.

[christiaan]

6. Buddhism, or at least some schools, is not into dualities either. When the discussion reaches the limit of its capacity for reduction there is no duality between Buddhism and Christianity - only absurdity (reductio ad absurdum) which requires us to start the discussion all over again. "Nothing exists; therefore what is this nothing?

Or put another way by the Dalai Lama, "The existence of things is not in dispute, it is the manner in which they exist that must be clarified," and that "existence can only be understood in terms of dependent origination," ie no thing or being exists independently of other beings or things.

Theravada Buddhism differs on this point in that the priority is not so much to clarify the existence of things vs the non-existence of things (the latter being one distinct line of inquiry in academic Western philosophy), but rather to pose a solution to the existential dilemma, ie that that which exists - whatever its nature - has no owner, no permanency and no ultimate satisfaction.

However there is an elucidation of paramattha dhamma -- ultimate realties -- that is quite detailed, should anyone here be bothered to read it Not seamless, but then no theory of either physics or philosophy is.

In moral and ethical levels, Buddhism and Christianity share many commonalities. In their response to the existential dilemma, they differ on most major points.

Are B & C compatible? Philosophically speaking, it's an academic judgement call for the individual. Surely the two religions, in their great variety of interpretations, co-exist quite well for the most part.

When I practised satipatthana vipassana at Wat Bowonniwet many years ago, three of my fellow students were Jesuit priests who had been there at least a year. They found the two belief systems very compatible.

No one can definitively pronounce either compatibility or mutual exclusivity. It's all in the eye of the beholder, like most speculation about reality.

Well, we are not talking about the existence of things being the conditions, we are talking about soul, I, enlightment, nibbana and such kind of 'phenomena'.

The conditions - being earth conditions- within Christianity, do have an owner as far as they are owned, that is ofcourse a temporarly ownership only bound to earth existence.

Life on earth is temporarly ownership of imparmenent earth conditions.

But the owner seems not to be the main importance, not even 'seen' in Buddhism where it is quite obvious the most important in Christian belief.

The conditions are interdependent, but is nibbana depending on the conditions, is nibbana the product of conditions?

I think Buddhism would have a BIG problem when they teach nibbana is interdependent with conditions.

To write no one can definitively pronounce the compatibillity or mutual exclusivity is maybe just an attempt to reduce it to nothing and to avoid answering the question of the topic.?

I would say to tell this all is just in the eye of the beholder is the ultimate subjective reduction of all people can discover and an escape way that is telling someone personally doesnot know.

It is quite clear looking at the ownership of conditions Buddhism and Christianty are not compatible since Buddhism doesnot 'see' the owner of impernament conditions as it is 'seen' by Christians.

[Brucenkhamen]

It is quite clear looking at the ownership of conditions Buddhism and Christianty are not compatible since Buddhism doesnot 'see' the owner of impernament conditions as it is 'seen' by Christians.

So you think Christians can see a soul then? I think it would be less incorrect to say that Christians believe in the existence of a soul.

[christiaan]

It is quite clear looking at the ownership of conditions Buddhism and Christianty are not compatible since Buddhism doesnot 'see' the owner of impernament conditions as it is 'seen' by Christians.

So you think Christians can see a soul then? I think it would be less incorrect to say that Christians believe in the existence of a soul.

I think they believe in a soul?

I know they believe in a soul and an I.

Don't you know??? One can read in the most important books of the Christians (I even cited a text out of the Nag Hammadi), so I would say everybody who takes the efforts to read the original texts, can think- know - they believe in a soul, a self and an I .

Just like people can learn to know Buddhists think - believe - there is no soul and no I , and think - believe - there is nibbana.

But maybe you try to ask me if I think the same as they do?

Well overhere that is not the topic.

The topic is that Christians do believe and Buddhists seems not to believe , and that is what makes them incompatible.

This seems to be an objective fact people overhere have problems to face.

But when I am wrong I have no problems in becoming aware of correcting information.

[canuckamuck]

The general description is that man is body, soul, and spirit, and sometimes the word soul is swapped with mind.

The soul is you. If your name is Fritz and someone says hey Fritz! The soul is the part that reacts and recognizes its name. the soul makes decisions for the flesh, although there are autonomic processes too. The flesh is selfish and campaigns loudly for pleasure, the spirit quietly reminds you of right behavior. As you develop your ability to hear your spirit, the more you are able to make right choices.

The body is temporary (your earth suit) and the soul and spirit are permanent(which conflicts with Buddhism right there. I guess you could say the spirit is attached to the soul. Your spirit is your interface to the supernatural (to God). Your body is your interface with the physical plain.

[Brucenkhamen]

I think they believe in a soul?

I know they believe in a soul and an I.

And I know it too.

This difference between Chritianity and Buddhism was addressed on page 1.

The point is they believe in a soul, they can't see a soul as your original post implied, nobody has ever seen a soul.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

Your body is your interface with the physical plain.

I'd have thought the body was actually in the physical plain rather than interfacing with it.

[christiaan]

I think they believe in a soul?

I know they believe in a soul and an I.

And I know it too.

This difference between Chritianity and Buddhism was addressed on page 1.

The point is they believe in a soul, they can't see a soul as your original post implied, nobody has ever seen a soul.

The topic overhere Brucenkhamen, is not if anybody has ever 'seen' a soul or the I , or 'seen' enlightment and nibbana, the topic overhere is: are Buddhism and Christianity compatible or mutually exclusive?

This question is right on top of this page.

So we have two essentially different phenomena overhere that are under our attention:

1. Buddhism that thinks or believes the soul and the I are non existent becos you cannot see them, and I assume, - and please correct me when I am wrong in assuming so -, by this seeing is meant seeing with the eyes as one can see a chair, and at the same time thinks and believes enlightment and nibbana and the proces of meditations are existent even when they also are not visable, not to be 'seen'.

2. Christianity that thinks and believes the soul and the I are existent even when you cannot see them with the physical eyes, and at the same time think heaven, and 'enlightment' exists, even when you cannot see them with the physical eyes.

So the point is not if they can or cannot see a soul, the point is that for a Chrisitian Christianity is all about the soul and the I. Without this soul and I there would not be Christianity.

With regard to this essential difference I have written, Buddhism and Christianity are not compatible and Buddhism essentially excludes Christianity.

And that is directly related to the topic overhere.

[christiaan]

The general description is that man is body, soul, and spirit, and sometimes the word soul is swapped with mind.

The soul is you. If your name is Fritz and someone says hey Fritz! The soul is the part that reacts and recognizes its name. the soul makes decisions for the flesh, although there are autonomic processes too. The flesh is selfish and campaigns loudly for pleasure, the spirit quietly reminds you of right behavior. As you develop your ability to hear your spirit, the more you are able to make right choices.

The body is temporary (your earth suit) and the soul and spirit are permanent(which conflicts with Buddhism right there. I guess you could say the spirit is attached to the soul. Your spirit is your interface to the supernatural (to God). Your body is your interface with the physical plain.

This is some meandering and is not directly on topic.

What you write is a Christian aproach. In Buddhism the same story is told different. Within this view the mind is reacting when Fritz is called by his conditioned name concept. The mind makes decission to the physical existence based on known concepts. The mind is ego, this ego is the self and is suffering in the flesh and the by you called 'campaigning'.

When one develops insight in the processes of the mind-ego and detach from the suffering one can at the end reach enlightment at the moment human becomes non-self, non-ego.

As far as I know Christianity does not tell the soul is permanent, but the I is, being your essential spirit. The soul is the 'interface' for the body and spirit. The body is build out of physic and the spirit is build out of the spirit. As far as I know Christians explain this by the text : <Gen1 -26 : Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." ²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them > . This seems to be the explicit creation of human (androgyn, male and female he created them) within the realm of the spirit becos it is only in Gen 2 - 4 that the Bible tells God made human physical existent . <In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, ⁵ when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; ⁶ but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground-- ⁷ then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being > (after this came the moment God 'divided' man in male and female)

So, as I have understood out of studying the Christian texts, there are 2 creations, first the creation of man within the spiritual realm and second the creation of human in physical realm.

But hat is what I have studied so far about Christian wisdom.

Just some meandering.

[Brucenkhamen]

The topic overhere Brucenkhamen, is not if anybody has ever 'seen' a soul or the I , or 'seen' enlightment and nibbana, the topic overhere is: are Buddhism and Christianity compatible or mutually exclusive?

This question is right on top of this page.

Don’t complain to me, you were the one who stated Christians see the soul, don’t make a statement if you don’t want to discuss it.

I didn’t think anybody would be silly enough to think the soul could or should be seen, until now, the defining difference as I mentioned is a matter of belief or interpretation not sight.

The normal human habit is to assume that the interconnected characteristics of the mind body process is a self or an owner or a soul. Buddhism seeks to question that assumption and therefore gain freedom from the suffering that results from the subjective identification with it.

Most other religions don’t question that assumption, Christianity included, however it is possible in identifying with a higher self or God that the identification with the believers own small self is loosened, selfless action is praised by all religion after all.

With regard to this essential difference I have written, Buddhism and Christianity are not compatible and Buddhism essentially excludes Christianity.

And that is directly related to the topic overhere.

As has been pointed out there are some people do feel that taking practises from both religions works for them, and there are different ways of looking at the question other than comparing one doctrine with another. I don’t think this provides any proof of compatibility but I’m not interested in telling them that they are wrong as I don’t find such a narrow view helpful.

[christiaan]

Who is complaining? I am not. I just 'saw' you are far out of topic, meandering away.

I nowhere wrote I noticed Christians do see the soul or the I with their physical senses, the eyes.

What you call 'defining difference' is in my view the essential difference of incompatibillity.

What you call the normal habitude could also be - for some people - the intuitive feeling and inner experience of autonomous humans.

Then I wonder: Is it the normal habit for Buddhists to think so?

It is a way of thinking and probably believing, Christians seem to take out of the Bible, to illustrate this I cited texts out of different books considered to be books of very profane wisdom for many Christians.

Hardly habitual thinking I would say, not more or less as Buddhist thinking.

Christians seem to have Christ as their teacher for their thinking where Buddhists have Buddha as their teacher.

That is where the differences arise from and so also the possible incompatibillity.

I agree some Christians do live by the interpretations of those teachings out of habitude but there is a significant number of Christians that do question the main stream interpretations and come up with their specific approaches. So by the facts I know you are completely wrong in thinking Christians do not question, maybe the Christians you know do not, but most of the Christians I know and meet certainly do.

Then there is probably a big number of 'Buddhists' who also have their normal habits of thinking out of one of the diverse interpretations of Buddhism so one can have questionmarks to your remark: Buddhists seeks to question. Some Bhuddists do but certainly not all, many just copy and have no essential questions within their traditions.

Then as you write it Buddhists do not question those 'habitudes' since you conclude in the same line they are explained as : subjective identification (What is subjectively identficating with what?) and in wich way to become free - of this habitude of subjective identification. A few lines later on you are writing about: the identification with the believers own small self is loosened(!) So no questioning. Where Christians see the Soul and the I as of main importance, you talk about identifications of small selfs.

I not only see in this way of discussing a narrow field but also in the excluding of the existence and the im,portance of the Soul and the I as seen by Christians.

I do not object people think the way they like to think, it is no competition. Overhere the question however is: are they compatible or mutual exclusive? (How often have I already reminded people of this fact)

It might be true that selfless action is praised by all religion, but I am told by Christians as confirmed in their books of wisdom by the teachings of Christ, for Christians selfless action comes out of the awareness, inspiration and power of the spiritual I within the soul of the human being.

And with this it is not compatible with Buddhism as is the question of this topic.

And probably at some point also this topic will be closed because of entering personal remarks (?) and I probably again will be accused and maybe even expelled from this forum for being overly wordy and making people weary.

[canuckamuck]

Your body is your interface with the physical plain.

I'd have thought the body was actually in the physical plain rather than interfacing with it.

The body is in the physical plain, but where is the mind/soul? The mind/soul is the I. The body experiences the physical and the mind reacts.

[canuckamuck]

The general description is that man is body, soul, and spirit, and sometimes the word soul is swapped with mind.

The soul is you. If your name is Fritz and someone says hey Fritz! The soul is the part that reacts and recognizes its name. the soul makes decisions for the flesh, although there are autonomic processes too. The flesh is selfish and campaigns loudly for pleasure, the spirit quietly reminds you of right behavior. As you develop your ability to hear your spirit, the more you are able to make right choices.

The body is temporary (your earth suit) and the soul and spirit are permanent(which conflicts with Buddhism right there. I guess you could say the spirit is attached to the soul. Your spirit is your interface to the supernatural (to God). Your body is your interface with the physical plain.

This is some meandering and is not directly on topic.

What you write is a Christian aproach. In Buddhism the same story is told different. Within this view the mind is reacting when Fritz is called by his conditioned name concept. The mind makes decission to the physical existence based on known concepts. The mind is ego, this ego is the self and is suffering in the flesh and the by you called 'campaigning'.

When one develops insight in the processes of the mind-ego and detach from the suffering one can at the end reach enlightment at the moment human becomes non-self, non-ego.

As far as I know Christianity does not tell the soul is permanent, but the I is, being your essential spirit. The soul is the 'interface' for the body and spirit. The body is build out of physic and the spirit is build out of the spirit. As far as I know Christians explain this by the text : <Gen1 -26 : Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." ²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them > . This seems to be the explicit creation of human (androgyn, male and female he created them) within the realm of the spirit becos it is only in Gen 2 - 4 that the Bible tells God made human physical existent . <In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, ⁵ when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; ⁶ but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground-- ⁷ then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being > (after this came the moment God 'divided' man in male and female)

So, as I have understood out of studying the Christian texts, there are 2 creations, first the creation of man within the spiritual realm and second the creation of human in physical realm.

But hat is what I have studied so far about Christian wisdom.

Just some meandering.

In Genesis 1, an overview of all creation is given. In Genesis 2 the creation of man and the conditions of man's creation are expanded on in more detail. It is not two creations.

[Brucenkhamen]

Christaan: Who is complaining? I am not. I just 'saw' you are far out of topic, meandering away.

I nowhere wrote I noticed Christians do see the soul or the I with their physical senses, the eyes.

What was the purpose of pointing out to me the topic of the thread then? a topic in which in your own estimation you had already digressed from by stating that Christians can see the soul.

Christaan: What you call 'defining difference' is in my view the essential difference of incompatibillity.

What’s the difference between a defining difference and an essential difference? I’d have thought the terms were synonymous, are you giving English lessons now?

Christaan: What you call the normal habitude could also be - for some people - the intuitive feeling and inner experience of autonomous humans.

Then I wonder: Is it the normal habit for Buddhists to think so?

When did I say “habitude”? Habitude is not a real English word, I used the word “assumption”. Though I must admit you’ve invented a clever compound word there, I might use it someday.

It definitely like it better than your other compound word “overhere”.

Christaan: I agree some Christians do live by the interpretations of those teachings out of habitude but there is a significant number of Christians that do question the main stream interpretations and come up with their specific approaches. So by the facts I know you are completely wrong in thinking Christians do not question, maybe the Christians you know do not, but most of the Christians I know and meet certainly do.

I didn’t say Christians did not question, I said something along the lines of it’s normal for people (other than Buddhists) to not question the assumption of a self.

Christaan: Some Bhuddists do but certainly not all, many just copy and have no essential questions within their traditions.

This is of course true.

Christaan: A few lines later on you are writing about: the identification with the believers own small self is loosened(!) So no questioning. Where Christians see the Soul and the I as of main importance, you talk about identifications of small selfs.

[/i]

Christians see God as being of main importance, not the soul, not their own small self,

Christaan: It might be true that selfless action is praised by all religion, but I am told by Christians as confirmed in their books of wisdom by the teachings of Christ, for Christians selfless action comes out of the awareness, inspiration and power of the spiritual I within the soul of the human being.

And with this it is not compatible with Buddhism as is the question of this topic.

Well the Christians I know would say the inspiration of their selfless acts comes from God not the soul of the human being, they would probably consider anyone ascribing this inspiration as coming from the human soul as being a humanist not a Christian.

Having said that there are some Christians are very humanist in their outlook and they are the ones who are more likely to find some compatibility with Buddhism.

Christaan: And probably at some point also this topic will be closed because of entering personal remarks (?) and I probably again will be accused and maybe even expelled from this forum for being overly wordy and making people weary.

You misrepresented my post on several points and I’m not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or haven’t invested the time and attention to read it properly. Jesus said you reap what you sow, on this point the Buddha would agree wholeheartedly.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

The body is in the physical plain, but where is the mind/soul?

Good question.

The body experiences the physical and the mind reacts.

Most Buddhist Insight meditation practices are about exploring this interface between body and mind.

[canuckamuck]

The body is in the physical plain, but where is the mind/soul?

Good question.

The body experiences the physical and the mind reacts.

Most Buddhist Insight meditation practices are about exploring this interface between body and mind.

In Christianity there is a recognized battle between flesh and spirit, referred to recently as the battlefield of the mind.

Is there such a concept in Buddhism? or is it simply body and mind?

In my thinking the flesh is like a 2 year old that only wants what it wants, no processing risk or consequences. The flesh is totally self involved and wants every toy in the room, especially when someone else has it. The flesh has good desires (nourishment, relationship, aversion to pain) and bad desires(things that feel good but will ultimately destroy or damage the flesh or the relationship with other humans).

The spirit is wise but quiet, easy to ignore and hard to hear over the aggressive flesh. Most humans are unfamiliar with their spiritual component.

The mind/soul is you, the decider, the manager, and the manager must control the flesh and discern the good from the bad.

[Brucenkhamen]

In Christianity there is a recognized battle between flesh and spirit, referred to recently as the battlefield of the mind.

Is there such a concept in Buddhism? or is it simply body and mind?

I'd say in Buddhism the mind is considered to be the battlefield, the flesh/body is just a pawn and would just be an inert object if it weren't for the mind.

The desires of the flesh/body are actually created by the mind not the body, the body just sends signals to the mind telling it whether an experience is pleasant or unpleasant and then the mind reacts, the key is to catch that reaction before it happens and therefore have a choice about how to react.

The functions you've described as soul and spirit would all be considered functions of the mind, the difference being these are considered processese of mind rather than distinct entities that consitute a seperate self.

[canuckamuck]

That is interesting and it shows another level of commonality but ultimately another incompatibility

In Buddhism the flesh is only an avatar and not at war with the spirit; but the mind is still the decider. No spirit exists. In Buddhism there are only choices based on knowledge and experience. Right living must be learned. One is dependent on teaching, exposure to knowledge.

In Christianity the flesh has strong opinions and the spirit is the mind's gentle ally against wrong choices.

In Christianity there is an internal moral code, an instinctual understanding of right and wrong. Right living can be cross referenced between knowledge and spirit.

[Brucenkhamen]

That is interesting and it shows another level of commonality but ultimately another incompatibility

In Buddhism the flesh is only an avatar and not at war with the spirit; but the mind is still the decider. No spirit exists. In Buddhism there are only choices based on knowledge and experience. Right living must be learned. One is dependent on teaching, exposure to knowledge.

In Christianity the flesh has strong opinions and the spirit is the mind's gentle ally against wrong choices.

In Christianity there is an internal moral code, an instinctual understanding of right and wrong. Right living can be cross referenced between knowledge and spirit.

Sounds like you've got it in a nutshell.

I suspect on the base level the process we are describing here is much the same however it's how we describe, break down and categorise it on the conceptual level that makes the difference.

[canuckamuck]

Maybe I am a nut

[Brucenkhamen]

Maybe I am a nut

A canuckanut.

[Xangsamhua]

In Christianity there is a recognized battle between flesh and spirit, referred to recently as the battlefield of the mind.

Is there such a concept in Buddhism? or is it simply body and mind?

Isn't this a little "gnostic", C? More Christiaan than Christian?

I know St Paul goes on about the contest between sarx (body/flesh/sinful nature), pneuma (spirit) and psyche (soul), especially the battles being waged within his own person, but St Paul was admired by the gnostics and has had to be defended by orthodox scholars from charges of gnosticism.

However, in asserting the two-natures-in-one-person doctrine (the "hypostatic union"), the Council of Nicaea affirmed the appropriateness of the flesh as a material form into which the Logos/Third Person could be incarnated. From the time of Nicaea and, later, Constantinople and Chalcedon, the church has regarded the body as having nobility. It enables the spirit to engage materially with the rest of God's creation and is expected to be resurrected and reunited with the soul at the Last Judgement. The momentous decisions of the Council Fathers in the fourth and fifth centuries settled for orthodox Christianity the question of whether Jesus was simply God masquerading as a person (Docetism) or both fully human (i.e. fleshly) and fully divine at the same time. This has been the position of the all the major Christian traditions, Roman and Uniate Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant/Reform until now. The alternative, Monophysite, view, that Jesus had only one nature, divine but with human aspects as well, remained in the East and was mainly swallowed up by Islam (except in Ethiopia).

The dualism between body and mind that we see in some forms of Buddhism is not a feature of Nicaean and Chalcedonian Christianity, though it was revivified in the life and writing of St Augustine, who had an enormous influence on Christianity until the present, though less so in Catholicism since Vatican Two and never as much in Southern Catholic states as the Northern ones (including Britain and Ireland). Even Christian monasticism emphasises labour, together with study and prayer, unlike Theravadin monasticism, which forbids any kind of demanding labour, such as digging, and requires the monk to live off the labour of others.

Of course, the Nicaean-Chalcedonian formulae led to all kinds of philosophical conundrums - some important (Did God suffer on the cross?) and others less so (Did Jesus have nocturnal emissions?), but they did raise the human body to a very high status by virtue of asserting that God chose to be born via gestation and parturition and to grow to manhood as a normal human being. If Mary's womb is worthy to carry the fetus Jesus, and his body a suitable vehicle for his spirit and his divine nature, then it's not something to be dismissed, as the gnostics (and perhaps some Buddhists) would have it.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[canuckamuck]

In Christianity there is a recognized battle between flesh and spirit, referred to recently as the battlefield of the mind.

Is there such a concept in Buddhism? or is it simply body and mind?

Isn't this a little "gnostic", C? More Christiaan than Christian?

Not really so complex Xang, straight out of Romans.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. (Romans 8:5-6)

[Xangsamhua]

In Christianity there is a recognized battle between flesh and spirit, referred to recently as the battlefield of the mind.

Is there such a concept in Buddhism? or is it simply body and mind?

Isn't this a little "gnostic", C? More Christiaan than Christian?

Not really so complex Xang, straight out of Romans.

For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. (Romans 8:5-6)

Pauline Christianity.

Paul wasn't really interested in the flesh and blood Jesus - only the Jesus of the spirit, the one he met in his vision on the road. I'm no Paul expert, but I don't find him convincing. The Antiochene church (his mother church) thought he was a loose cannon and followed him along the road for a while, warning the churches. Paul defended himself in 2 Corinthians, but I'm not sure if it was against the Antiochenes or someone else. I read Jerome Murphy O'Connor on this, but it was several years ago and I haven't been thinking about Paul since then.

Valentinian, perhaps the most highly regarded of the Gnostics, and who went close to being elected Bishop of Rome, had quite a bit of time for Paul and either he or one of his followers wrote The Prayer of the Apostle Paul, one of the texts found at Nag Hammadi. Of course, the fact that the Gnostics liked Paul doesn't mean Paul really was a gnostic or that Christian gnosticism was bad thing. The early church was riddled with gnosticism, but that was largely put to rest by the third century and dead in the water by the time of Nicaea.

The New Testament presents a variety of Christs, a variety of teachings and a variety of early follower-communities. It's interesting that Pauline epistles dominate it, given the disconnect between the bodily Jesus wandering around Galilee and Jerusalem in the synoptic gospels and the Spirit-based teachings of Paul (together with his own self-promotion), but I have to go now, so will finish here.

Token reference to Buddhism: Is Paul's teaching Mahayana to the Gospels' Theravada?

[lungmi]

It's the topic.

The only facts about a man coming from the West to the East are in old Chinese books from Chinese (Buddhist) pilgrims who came back to China and had to write down their experiences.

They mentioned there was a "healer" (in the area where Marco Polo stopped, this one never has been in China, a western legend too) with a good name, he wanted to learn from Indian medicine.

The rest is speculation, legends at the level of Marco Polo.

But what me confirm that Jesu has been there is his "healing" experience, psychosomatic approach, energy moving, holistic understanding of the sickness - the teaching of Jivaka Komarpaj (doctor of the Buddha) and others from A sia.

[rockyysdt]

In the bible there are many quotes on meditation.

Joshua 1:8 Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.

Psalm 39:3-4 My heart grew hot within me, and as I meditated, the fire burned; then I spoke with my tongue:

Psalm 104:34 May my meditation be pleasing to him, as I rejoice in the LORD.

Psalm 119:26-27 I recounted my ways and you answered me; teach me your decrees. Let me understand the teaching of your precepts; then I will meditate on your wonders.

How different is Biblical meditation to Buddhist meditation?

Are they compatible or mutually exclusive?

Could one be to "explore with an open mind and without attachment" vs to "study with full faith and without question"?

Edited March 2, 2011 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

To write no one can definitively pronounce the compatibillity or mutual exclusivity is maybe just an attempt to reduce it to nothing and to avoid answering the question of the topic.?

Not at all. That *is* the answer, as far as the reality of the matter is concerned.

People have debated such issues for centuries, no doubt, and no definitive comparative summary has ever been reached. Nor will it, as it's a matter of opinion and interpretation.

And why should a definitive answer be given? From a practical perspective, it is of little use to either a Christian or a Buddhist, who have already defined what their methodology is about to their own respective satisfaction.

To stand outside a belief system and analyse it is not the same thing as understanding the system, just as analysing the sounds of Latin or Pali without understanding the actual meanings of the words does not demonstrate an understanding of the semantics of those languages.

Not being a Christian, I will never understand much of what is written in the Bible. I have no idea, from reading about it in the Bible, what 'the kingdom of heaven' means, for example. If I were a practising, believing Christian, there's a chance I might.

To understand both religions without practising either, and then to pronounce them compatible or incompatible, is a tall order.