Buddhism doesn’t mandate or require one to believe in multiple gods or reincarnation, it took me a while to grasp this.
A thing that bugs me about modern day christianity is it turns a blind eye away from a very decadent materialistic lifestyle in america. much is wasted.
whereas on the other hand, those who call might call themselves christians and think they are going to meditate on stillness and nothing, even calling it a budhist prayer technique, if often follows where the person feels a need to call upon a basic life in the materialistic realm. these christians are often called pagans and hedonist by the materialistic ones. who is more guilty?
I don’t know why these things bug me.
I can’t argue beyond today in this potential thread, i’m not chicken, my free guest pass ran out. It’s pay to play around here. if i find my bankcard, i’ll report back with my conclusion about american style christians and their attitudes about nothingness.
Either your syntax or your idea needs a bit of work, here. I have never encountered a Christian who called a Buddhist a hedonist.
There is a clear conflict between the core belief of Christianity (which posits a personal God who takes an interest in the actions of each of his creations) and Buddhism (which does not envison any sort of personal–or even impersonal–deity). However, sincere Christians and Buddhists have recognized in each others’ beliefs very similar approaches to the way a person should behave and the attitudes that one should maintain when viewing the world and there has been an active Christian/Buddhist dialogue on these points for many years.
I would guess that some Christians might look on Buddhism as pagan for not worshipping the “correct” God (or, if they are truly uninformed, for believing Buddhists worship Buddha), but I have never encountered a Christian who called Buddhists hedonistic.
I’m not sure the two religions are psychologically compatible. A hope for an afterlife, indeed a hope for anything other than compassion, might well be seen as grasping. Same for the concept of a personal eternal soul.
And anyone paying attention would have noticed that various Christian denominations all over the theoideological spectrum are sharply critical of the consumer society, so that broad generalization is also weakened somewhat.
But Buddhism doesn’t necessarily exclude such a deity either. The theistic question is basically incidental to Buddhism. There is no requirement not to believe in one God, or even to believe that Jesus died for your sins. Buddhism is not a system of beliefs or doctrines, it’s a theory of cognitive methodologies whose goal is to create a specific state of mind- a cessation of psychological suffering- while alive. Elements such as karma, reincarnation and gods may be believed or disbelieved according to one’s personal whims or experiences. The Buddha himself advised agianst even asking those questions as he considered them to be a distraction and an obstruction to becoming enlightened.
If Buddhist practice is pursued solely according to precepts of the Four Noble Truths - as a cognitive discipline - then there is no necessary conflict with Christian doctrine.
There are so many varieties of Buddhism it’s hard to make a blanket statement about what Buddhists believe. A few minority sects, notably Japanese Pure Land Buddhism, do engage in what is essentially worship of Buddha (or Buddhas), although they’ll say they don’t. By worship, I mean acknowledgment of dependence on Buddha (or Buddhas) for salvation.
Yes, but Buddha also taught that the result of enlightenment is nibbana. Surely that state (or lack of any state, I guess) is not compatible with Christian teachings of afterlife. The soul is indestructible, according to Christian understanding.
I agree that following the Eight-Fold Path is certainly not incompatible with Christian teaching.
Nirvana/Nibbana is not a teaching about the afterlife or about the soul. It’s a state of mind achieved in life. It is not a “snuffing out” of the soul but of the ego.
I seem to remember that the Buddha considered the devas of the Hindu tradition to be real; but some could actually be an impediment to achieving enlightenment, depending upon one’s approach to them, or them to human beings. In some respects, humans could be thought of as superior to at least some of the devas, as some (like the demon Mara) were bent on keeping humans subject to samsara, and are perhaps more unregenerate than any human ever could be.
I’ve no idea where Jesus and the Father might fit into such a scheme. I think it could go either way. Some mahayana Buddhists regard Jesus as bhoddisatva (though that’s a very different view of His role than the one Christians understand). It’s hard to deny that the God of Abraham demands worship, in any case, and that seems pretty incompatible with the Bhuddist Path to enlightenment. I also can’t figure how the concept of anatta could possibly be worked into a Buddhist philosophy. There are so many strains of Buddhism, however, I’m sure you could find somebody who has figured it all out for themselves.
What does that mean, though? Devotion to the Abrahamic God, as one would be instructed according to the Bible, hardly seems to involve the mildly ascetic existence the Buddha appeared to feel was essential to enlightenment. “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the Earth and subdue it, and have dominion…” etc., hardly seems like the prescribed life of the monk or nun in the sangha in the Buddhist tradition.
There is no necessity for ascetecism in Buddhism. Most people are exhorted to follow their own dharmas, to do their duties, to go to work and to care for their families. What matters is one’s mental attitudes towards those things. There is supposed to be a certain detachment. One does one’s duty without expectation of reward or concern for things beyond one’s control. There obviously should be no attachment to material things but that doesn’t mean one can’t own things. It’s all about the attitude.
Buddhism is about following principles. Good principles, sure, but let’s face it: most religions say the same thing. Peace, love, goodwill, yada yada.
Take Buddha away from Buddhism, though, and you’ve still got everything you need. He’s just the founder. AFAIK, Buddhists don’t worship Buddha, they just think he was a pretty good guy. IIRC, on his deathbed Buddha said he didn’t want to be remembered, he wanted his values to be remembered.
Christianity, though, is totally different. Christianity could not exist if Jesus didn’t. It’s not about following a set of principles. It’s a relationship with a person: a person who dared to say that He is/was THE one. THE guy. The only guy. The head honcho, whatever you want to call it.
I think Christians can go “hey, those Buddhists are good people, they believe in doing good, Buddha had some good ideas” but as far as “embracing” Buddhism? Why? Whatever Buddha said that happened to be right, Jesus also said (and then there’s the matter of the resurrection). Why would any Christian need (or want) to incorporate other religions if they believe that Christianity is the only way and completely true?
How does this represent a contradiction? Buddhism does not forbid anyone from being a Christian and there is no essential Buddhist precept which contradicts Christian doctrine.
Why not? It can be quite exhilerating?
Really? Jesus talked about the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path? Cite?
How does a belief in the Resurrection contradict Buddhism?
How do you know that Buddhism isn’t also completely true? How do you know that a Christian couldn’t possible derive any value from something like Zen Meditation?
Do you realize that you haven’t actually articulated a single reason that Christianity must conflict with Buddhist disciplines? Just because you can’t personally see any value in Buddhism (and what do you actually know about Buddhism? Just curious) doesn’t mean that it contradicts any part of Christian practice or belief.
Can you cite one essential Buddhist precept that would conflict with essential Christian doctrine?
I’m still having a hard time getting past anatta. In Jesus’ second coming, He will “judge the living and the dead”, after all. People have souls, according to Christianity, and those souls have an eternal identity; they are “selves”. Even more, one seeks “eternal life” for the soul through Christ. Nirvana would appear to be quite the opposite, a kind of extinguishing of the Self.