Buddhism: Neither Theistic nor Atheistic

[Gxg (G²)]

Please show me where, specifically, your article proves that Pure Land Buddhism was influenced by Christianity.
.

And as said before, please address what was already noted (if seriously dealing with what actual scholars - both Christian and Buddhist have said) rather than doing cherry picking by ignoring Nestorian Influence on early Pure Land Buddhism. It is not hidden and has been pointed out several times - including in the articles.

As said before, it'd behoove you if speaking on Buddhist history/interaction to see the Nestorian roots in land PRE-CEDEDING the rise of Pure Land Buddhism (especially during the Mongol times) and the Buddhist texts themselves ..

The monk from Parthia in China during the 2nd century who spread Christian elements in Pure Land Buddhism (since Nestorian Christianity was already present)but it is but one fact among many others

And For further reference, as said best in
Assyrian Christian Influences on Early Japanese Buddhism:

Turns out that in 782 an Indian Buddhist monk named Prajna came to the Chinese imperial capital Chang'an. He carried with him a collection of Sanskrit Buddhist texts. He found an unlikely collaborator in doing his translations in the person of a Nestorian bishop, Adam. The two embarked on a twenty year long project. The results of their efforts was a seven volume collection of the Buddhas' teachings.

Near the end of their project Saicho and Kukai, two Japanese Buddhist monks arrived in quest of Buddhist texts. And they returned to Japan with the seven volume anthology. Kukai would become the founder of the Shingon school while Saicho would establish the Tendai school, from which both the Japanese Shin or Pure Land and the Zen schools would emerge.

Several scholars have speculated on the degree to which Bishop Adam's syncretic Nestorian Christianity seeped into those Chinese texts, and from there to consider to what degree Christian spirituality, if an eccentric version, could have influenced the formation of four different schools of Japanese Buddhism.

Editor's note: see the following books on the Assyrian Church of the East missionary activity in Mongolia, China, Korea, Japan and the Phillipines:


​

• 
  
  
  • • By Foot To China: Mission of The Church of the East, to 1400
    • The Monks of Kublai Khan
    • History of Christianity in Asia: Volume One, Beginnings to 1500; Samuel Moffet; Harper Collins; 1994.

​

A restoration of the original silk painting of a missionary bishop of the Church of the East, now in the British Museum, London, discovered by Sir Aurel Stein at Tun-huang, western China, in 1908. It had been found, along with many manuscripts including some Christian ones, in a cave sealed in 1036. This restoration was painted by Robert MacGregor.​

And as said before, besides that, on Christian influence on Early Buddhism, there are several other scholars speaking on the historical background of where Christianity influenced Pure Land Buddhism in its development:

• 
  
  
  • "Part 1, Dr. Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, Part 1 "

• 
  
  
  • Part 2, Dr. Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, Part 2 "

• 
  
  
  • "

The other presentation I found to be highly excellent was entitled Object No. 14: The 'Nestorian Stone' or Church of the East Stele

It was presented by Martin Palmer, who wrote a book entitled "The Jesus Sutras" - more discussed in #17 as well as elsewhere in The Jesus Sutras (Part 1): Introduction | The Jesus Question and Sutras | Search Results | The Jesus Question​

But on the video presentation by Palmer, for a brief description:

With our penultimate object, Martin Palmer takes us back many centuries to consider what is normally seen as a very modern phenomenon: Christianity in China. The object is the Church of the East stele - also known as the Nestorian Stone. Dated 781 AD it tells the story of the arrival and spread of Christianity in China in beautiful Chinese poetry and includes a fascinating version of the Gospel working with Christian, Daoist, Buddhist and Confucian imagery and terminology. In terms of Christian history, the Stele is deeply significant. It conveys a form of Christianity that taught Original Goodness not Original Sin. It was a non-power based form of early Christianity unlike the Roman Empire and Christianity and as such offered a completely different way of being Christian; it had women ministers, was largely vegetarian and refused to own slaves - unlike, for example, Buddhist monasteries in China. The Stele also has the best preserved texts from the Church of the East, which from the 5th century to the 13th century was two to three times bigger in terms of numbers than the Church of the West and spread at its height from present day Iraq through Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, East Africa, Iran, the Central Steppes, Afghanistan, India, China, Mongolia to Japan and Korea. Yet, its history is almost unknown in the West. Martin Palmer will explore the Stele's history, its theology and the radical challenge it presents to how we think about Christianity. Martin discovered the only remaining building from the Church of the East, built in 650 AD, and this is now to be the centre-piece of a new Chinese-Government funded 'Museum of Christianity in China' to open in three years at a cost of roughly £110 million. Martin will explore why the Stele, and this building, are of such significance to contemporary China.​

Object No. 14: The 'Nestorian Stone' or Church of the East Stele - presented by Martin Palmer - YouTube​

And of course, if wanting to know more, one can go to Nestorian - Adventism in China or Four Historical Stages of the Indigenization of Chinese Christian Art : OMHKSEA

When you look at the essential meaning of Amida Buddha, I've demonstrated several times that it's inseparably rooted in the person and teachings of the historical Buddha:

Claiming to speak on te Amida Buddha is NOT the same as actually addressing it, as others have pointed out - and others have noted repeatedly where his actions have actually been separate from Buddhist tradition anyhow. As noted before:

Amida and Christ
Hirota quotes Karl Barth's emphatic statement that Christianity is bound up with the historical figure of Jesus Christ. I believe Barth is correct in this respect. I do not agree with him that doctrines in other communities similar to Christian ones lack similar effects. His position here follows from his supernaturalistic view of Jesus Christ, a view I do not share. Iffaith and practice similar to that of Christianity have emerged independently of Jesus Christ, then I would expect them to have similar salvific efficacy.

Hirota points out that the emphasis on similarity abstracts from contexts that are very different. In the previous sections I have been exploring the extent to which the different contexts lead to different conclusions on points that are important to me. Here I want to ask whether the historical connection to Sakyamuni plays the same essential role for Pure LandBuddhists as the historical connection to Jesus Christ plays for Christians.

Some Buddhists seem to answer negatively. Buddhism, they say, has to do with theattainment of enlightenment rather that with a historical connection to a particularEnlightened One. The historical context and tradition within which one becomesenlightened is secondary. Some Buddhists have affirmed this difference betweenChristianity and Buddhism as displaying Buddhism's greater openness and freedom from exclusivity.

These Buddhist arguments led me at an earlier point to propose that in the further development of some forms of Buddhism it would be possible to relate Buddhism to figures outside the Buddhist tradition equally with those within it. I thought this might be particularly appropriate for Pure Land. My argument was that Pure Land Buddhism identified its founder with a mythical figure, Dharmakara, that there are advantages in connecting one'stradition to historical reality, that the emphasis on other power or grace is clearer in theChristian tradition than in most Buddhism, and that Jesus could function as an historicalembodiment and teacher of grace.

I realized, of course, that this was not a step that many Pure Land Buddhists were ready to take. And on the whole the proposal has been greeted by silence. However, John Yokota has taken it seriously and gone to some length to reject it. He agrees that connecting the act of compassion to an historical figure is desirable, but he shows that this can be done with Sakyamuni. He apparently holds that since this is possible, there is no reason to consider other embodiments of compassion outside the Buddhist tradition.

His point that the Pure Land emphasis on the compassion of Amida can be grounded inSakyamuni's life and practice is well taken, and I am interested in the response of otherPure Land Buddhists to his proposal. Is there recognition of the advantage of locating the act of compassion historically, or are most Pure Land Buddhists content with a mythicalaccount recognized as mythical?

Nevertheless, I continue to wonder whether the embodiment of compassion must be found in the Buddhist tradition? Is this a point of disagreement among Buddhists? To sharpen my question, I again revert to an account of Christianity.

I have said that virtually all Christians understand Christianity as inherently, essentially, related to Jesus Christ. Many do not agree with Barth that salvation is effective only through this one historical event, but they then typically argue that God works salvifically outside of Christianity as well as within. Christianity is tied to the historical event even though the salvation to which Christianity witnesses need not be.

I am asking whether the relation of Buddhism to Sakyamuni is similar to that of Christianityto Jesus despite the statements by many Buddhists that there is a difference. Specifically inPure Land Buddhism, must faith be directed toward figures reverenced in traditionalBuddhist teaching in order for it to be Buddhist faith? If faith in the grace manifest in Jesus Christ had the same form and the same effect as faith in the compassion manifest inGautama or the mythical vow of Dharmakara, would this be shinjin, and would it beBuddhist?

To answer negatively is certainly not to make oneself vulnerable to Christian criticism. It is to clarify that being Buddhist is being part of a community and tradition initiated historically by Gautama. It then can be discussed whether one can realize Buddha nature orenlightenment apart from being Buddhist, and here, I assume, most Pure Land Buddhistswould take the same position as many Christians, namely, that Amida's compassion worksindependently of the Buddhist community and tradition. Would others take a position analogous to Barth's, namely, that apart from the nembutsu there can be no shinjin, whatever the formal similarities?​

 

[Yoder777]

It is Christian triumphalism that any religion based on salvation by grace must have somehow been a copycat of Christianity.

Pure Land teachings are clearly rooted in earlier Mahayana teachings and ideals:

Seeds of Pure Land Thought in the Bodhisattva Path
The path of realization based on the Mahayana conception of genuine wisdom was elaborated as the career of the bodhisattva. As described in Mahayana sutras, it begins with the profound awakening of the mind aspiring for enlightenment (bodhicitta), the determination to become a buddha whatever hardships one may encounter over the course of many lifetimes of endeavor. This unshakable resolution is declared in the presence of a buddha in formal vows, and typically, the bodhisattva receives from the buddha a prophesy foretelling eventual fulfillment of those vows. A standard element of such individual vows is the establishment, through their vast accumulation of merit through praxis, of a buddha land or field of influence (buddhakṣetra), which is understood as giving concrete manifestation both to the splendor of their attainment and to their activity to bring beings to enlightenment.

The bodhisattva then embarks upon the practices and disciplines, to be continued through countless lifetimes, that will finally result in fulfillment. It is said that vast aeons—“three great innumerable kalpas”—are required for the completion of a bodhisattva's practices (the inconceivable stretches of time may be understood as expressing the depths of a being's evil karma to be eradicated and the preciousness of enlightenment). The process of practice has been formulated in a scheme of ten stages, in which the most crucial is the stage of nonretrogression, the first (or in some formats, the seventh). While prior to reaching this stage, they will fall back into samsaric existence if they discontinue their practice, once they have attained nonretrogression through stilling their discriminative thought and seeing suchness, they will never regress but steadily advance in their practice to supreme awakening.

Although Pure Land Buddhism is sometimes understood to teach a paradisial afterlife, in fact it developed as a method for achieving nonretrogression, one that provided an alternative to the arduous endeavor through numerous lifetimes required for reaching this stage in the earlier formulations of the bodhisattva path. As practitioners found themselves without enlightened guidance in a world increasingly distant from the benign influence of a buddha's presence, the obstacles to successful practice loomed ever larger and practitioners came to seek a practicable way to advance. The possibility of entrance into an environment that would support one's efforts in bodhisattva practices emerged, and on the basis of the Pure Land sutras, the concepts of the bodhisattva path were recast to render a new understanding of the nature of practice.

2.3 Merit Transference
There are several aspects of the bodhisattva's career of particular note when approaching Pure Land Buddhist thought. First, an essential element of the bodhisattva path is the transference to other beings of the merit that accrues from performance of praxis. All Buddhists have accepted that, by the principle of karmic causation, good acts hold the power to counteract the effects of evil deeds and lead to better conditions in the next birth. In the earlier Buddhism, it was generally assumed that only one's own thoughts and acts could exert their influence on one's future conditions, although the evidence of inscriptions suggests that sharing merit with one's parents or teacher was also recognized. In the Mahayana tradition, however, bodhisattvas perform good acts and practices for long aeons and thus accumulate vast stores of merit, but their practice is invariably undertaken with the liberation of all beings foremost in their minds. Thus, their merit is always freely and selflessly given to beings in samsaric existence. This concept of giving or transferring merit (Jp. ekō) is a direct expression of the nature of bodhisattvas, for they undertake their practice in nondichotomous wisdom.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-pure-land/

The Pure Land teaching regarding trusting in the Compassionate Vow of Amida Buddha is clearly rooted in the earlier teaching regarding the Bodhisattva, not Christianity.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

And as said before, please address what was already noted (if seriously dealing with what actual scholars - both Christian and Buddhist have said) rather than doing cherry picking by ignoring Nestorian Influence on early Pure Land Buddhism. It is not hidden and has been pointed out several times - including in the articles.

As said before, it'd behoove you if speaking on Buddhist history/interaction to see the Nestorian roots in land PRE-CEDEDING the rise of Pure Land Buddhism (especially during the Mongol times) and the Buddhist texts themselves ..

The monk from Parthia in China during the 2nd century who spread Christian elements in Pure Land Buddhism (since Nestorian Christianity was already present)but it is but one fact among many others

And For further reference, as said best in
Assyrian Christian Influences on Early Japanese Buddhism:

Turns out that in 782 an Indian Buddhist monk named Prajna came to the Chinese imperial capital Chang'an. He carried with him a collection of Sanskrit Buddhist texts. He found an unlikely collaborator in doing his translations in the person of a Nestorian bishop, Adam. The two embarked on a twenty year long project. The results of their efforts was a seven volume collection of the Buddhas' teachings.

Near the end of their project Saicho and Kukai, two Japanese Buddhist monks arrived in quest of Buddhist texts. And they returned to Japan with the seven volume anthology. Kukai would become the founder of the Shingon school while Saicho would establish the Tendai school, from which both the Japanese Shin or Pure Land and the Zen schools would emerge.

Several scholars have speculated on the degree to which Bishop Adam's syncretic Nestorian Christianity seeped into those Chinese texts, and from there to consider to what degree Christian spirituality, if an eccentric version, could have influenced the formation of four different schools of Japanese Buddhism.

Editor's note: see the following books on the Assyrian Church of the East missionary activity in Mongolia, China, Korea, Japan and the Phillipines:


​

• 
  
  
  • • By Foot To China: Mission of The Church of the East, to 1400
    • The Monks of Kublai Khan
    • History of Christianity in Asia: Volume One, Beginnings to 1500; Samuel Moffet; Harper Collins; 1994.

​

A restoration of the original silk painting of a missionary bishop of the Church of the East, now in the British Museum, London, discovered by Sir Aurel Stein at Tun-huang, western China, in 1908. It had been found, along with many manuscripts including some Christian ones, in a cave sealed in 1036. This restoration was painted by Robert MacGregor.​

And as said before, besides that, on Christian influence on Early Buddhism, there are several other scholars speaking on the historical background of where Christianity influenced Pure Land Buddhism in its development:

• 
  
  
  • "Part 1, Dr. Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, Part 1 "

• 
  
  
  • Part 2, Dr. Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, Part 2 "

• 
  
  
  • "

The other presentation I found to be highly excellent was entitled Object No. 14: The 'Nestorian Stone' or Church of the East Stele

It was presented by Martin Palmer, who wrote a book entitled "The Jesus Sutras" - more discussed in #17 as well as elsewhere in The Jesus Sutras (Part 1): Introduction | The Jesus Question and Sutras | Search Results | The Jesus Question​

But on the video presentation by Palmer, for a brief description:

With our penultimate object, Martin Palmer takes us back many centuries to consider what is normally seen as a very modern phenomenon: Christianity in China. The object is the Church of the East stele - also known as the Nestorian Stone. Dated 781 AD it tells the story of the arrival and spread of Christianity in China in beautiful Chinese poetry and includes a fascinating version of the Gospel working with Christian, Daoist, Buddhist and Confucian imagery and terminology. In terms of Christian history, the Stele is deeply significant. It conveys a form of Christianity that taught Original Goodness not Original Sin. It was a non-power based form of early Christianity unlike the Roman Empire and Christianity and as such offered a completely different way of being Christian; it had women ministers, was largely vegetarian and refused to own slaves - unlike, for example, Buddhist monasteries in China. The Stele also has the best preserved texts from the Church of the East, which from the 5th century to the 13th century was two to three times bigger in terms of numbers than the Church of the West and spread at its height from present day Iraq through Iran, the Arabian Peninsula, East Africa, Iran, the Central Steppes, Afghanistan, India, China, Mongolia to Japan and Korea. Yet, its history is almost unknown in the West. Martin Palmer will explore the Stele's history, its theology and the radical challenge it presents to how we think about Christianity. Martin discovered the only remaining building from the Church of the East, built in 650 AD, and this is now to be the centre-piece of a new Chinese-Government funded 'Museum of Christianity in China' to open in three years at a cost of roughly £110 million. Martin will explore why the Stele, and this building, are of such significance to contemporary China.​

Object No. 14: The 'Nestorian Stone' or Church of the East Stele - presented by Martin Palmer - YouTube​

And of course, if wanting to know more, one can go to Nestorian - Adventism in China or Four Historical Stages of the Indigenization of Chinese Christian Art : OMHKSEA

As noted scholar Philip Jenkins noted best in the review:

The most stunningly successful of these eastern Christian bodies was the Church of the East, often called the Nestorian church. While the Western churches were expanding their influence within the framework of the Roman Empire, the Syriac-speaking churches colonized the vast Persian kingdom that ruled from Syria to Pakistan and the borders of China. From their bases in Mesopotamia - modern Iraq - Nestorian Christians carried out their vast missionary efforts along the Silk Route that crossed Central Asia. By the eighth century, the Church of the East had an extensive structure across most of central Asia and China, and in southern India. The church had senior clergy - metropolitans - in Samarkand and Bokhara, in Herat in Afghanistan. A bishop had his seat in Chang'an, the imperial capital of China, which was then the world's greatest superpower.

When Nestorian Christians were pressing across Central Asia during the sixth an
d seventh centuries, they met the missionaries and saints of an equally confident and expansionist religion: Mahayana Buddhism. Buddhists too wanted to take their saving message to the world, and launched great missions from India's monasteries and temples. In this diverse world, Buddhist and Christian monasteries were likely to stand side by side, as neighbors and even, sometimes, as collaborators. Some historians believe that Nestorian missionaries influenced the religious practices of the Buddhist religion then developing in Tibet. Monks spoke to monks.

In presenting their faith, Christians naturally used the cultural forms that would be familiar to Asians. They told their stories in the forms of sutras, verse patterns already made famous by Buddhist missionaries and teachers. A stunning collection of Jesus Sutras was found in caves at Dunhuang, in northwest China. Some Nestorian writings draw heavily on Buddhist ideas, as they translate prayers and Christian services in ways that would make sense to Asian readers. In some texts, the Christian phrase "angels and archangels and hosts of heaven" is translated into the language of buddhas and devas.

One story in particular suggests an almost shocking degree of collaboration between the faiths. In 782, the Indian Buddhist missionary Prajna arrived in Chang'an, bearing rich treasures of sutras and other scriptures. Unfortunately, these were written in Indian languages. He consulted the local Nestorian bishop, Adam, who had already translated parts of the Bible into Chinese. Together, Buddhist and Christian scholars worked amiably together for some years to translate seven copious volumes of Buddhist wisdom. Probably, Adam did this as much from intellectual curiosity as from ecumenical good will, and we can only guess about the conversations that would have ensued: Do you really care more about relieving suffering than atoning for sin? And your monks meditate like ours do?

These efforts bore fruit far beyond China. Other residents of Chang'an at this very time included Japanese monks, who took these very translations back with them to their homeland. In Japan, these works became the founding texts of the great Buddhist schools of the Middle Ages. All the famous movements of later Japanese history, including Zen, can be traced to one of those ancient schools and, ultimately - incredibly - to the work of a Christian bishop.

By the 12th century, flourishing churches in China and southern India were using the lotus-cross. The lotus is a superbly beautiful flower that grows out of muck and slime. No symbol could better represent the rise of the soul from the material, the victory of enlightenment over ignorance, desire, and attachment. For 2,000 years, Buddhist artists have used the lotus to convey these messages in countless paintings and sculptures. The Christian cross, meanwhile, teaches a comparable lesson, of divine victory over sin and injustice, of the defeat of the world. Somewhere in Asia, Yeshua's forgotten followers made the daring decision to integrate the two emblems, which still today forces us to think about the parallels between the kinds of liberation and redemption offered by each faith.

Christianity, for much of its history, was just as much an Asian religion as Buddhism. Asia's Christian churches survived for more than a millennium, and not until the 10th century, halfway through Christian history, did the number of Christians in Europe exceed that in Asia.

What ultimately obliterated the Asian Christians were the Mongol invasions, which spread across Central Asia and the Middle East from the 1220s onward. From the late 13th century, too, the world entered a terrifying era of climate change, of global cooling, which severely cut food supplies and contributed to mass famine. The collapse of trade and commerce crippled cities, leaving the world much poorer and more vulnerable. Intolerant nationalism wiped out Christian communities in China, while a surging militant Islam destroyed the churches of Central Asia.

But awareness of this deep Christian history contributes powerfully to understanding the future of the religion, as much as its past. For long centuries, Asian Christians kept up neighborly relations with other faiths, which they saw not as deadly rivals but as fellow travelers on the road to enlightenment. Their worldview differed enormously from the norms that developed in Europe.

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It is Christian triumphalism that any religion based on salvation by grace must have somehow been a copycat of Christianity.

Pure Land teachings are clearly rooted in earlier Mahayana teachings and ideals:



The Pure Land teaching regarding trusting in the Compassionate Vow of Amida Buddha is clearly rooted in the earlier teaching regarding the Bodhisattva, not Christianity.

None of what you said actually dealt with what the history has said on Nestorian Christians preceding Pure Land Buddhism - and is thus an argument of assertion. If you cannot deal even with what non-Christian scholars and Buddhists have said on the issue, then you are not actually dealing with Buddhism. No one said at any point, by the way, that any religion with the concept of salvation by grace is automatically based on Christianity. Judaism itself actually had the same concept before the Followers of the Way (Nazarenes, followers of Christ, etc.) became more than a sect in Judaism by emphasizing it on Christ (as mentioned before here)- so it would be disingenious to say it is solely about Christianity vs. anything else...

One, again, fails to actually deal with Nestorian Christianity that precedeeed development of Pure Land Buddhism and other Buddhists have been honest enough in noting that simple reality. There was a shift in Buddhist belief AT one point where a concept akin to grace emerged, due to the influence of Nestorian missionaries along the Silk Road,emerged Christianity entered Japan at the same time as Buddhism. Early Nestorian missionary bishops taught a doctrine of salvation by grace in such a way that it altered the teaching of even Buddhist rivals, thus proving the antiquity of justification by grace alone through faith alone from even the first and second century.



For the sake of the lurker, as other scholars have noted, one can investigate The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity with Tantric Buddhism (in By Huaiyu Chen in Tang Dynasty and Church of the East theology).

Moreover, there's the resource known as Teaching the Silk Road: A Guide for College Teachers
edited by Jacqueline M. Moore, Rebecca Woodward Wendelken and
Interpreting Amida: History and Orientalism in the Study of Pure Land Buddhism
By Galen Amstutz


There's also the excellent resource known as
A Buddhist Spectrum: Contributions to Buddhist-Christian Dialouge .. by By Marco Pallis (on what other Buddhist have actually said on Pure Land Buddhism and its development in relation to Christianity).

One can also deal with The Travels of William of Rubruck to the Mongol Court (13th c.), in which Friar William gives large descriptions of the Nestorians at the Mongol court and their interaction with other religions. And on the issue, as noted before with what Pure Land has taught:

I have had with Pure Land Buddhism, I sensethat there are disagreements as to how to understand the relation of faith and practice. There are, of course, similar disagreements among Christians. I shall first spell out my ownChristian view as a basis for clarifying the questions I address to Pure Land Buddhists.

In my view, faith is independent of practice and not attained by practice. It arises by grace, or what I called above the lure. The lure calls us to trust it. If we trust it, it is because of the efficacy of grace. But there is no trust without decision.

There is no spiritual condition or state to which faith is a means. There is no Christian goal higher than trusting God. Of course, some receive spiritual gifts of various sorts, and these are to be prized. But they do not constitute a normative condition for all Christians.

Although the lure works in us always, its effectiveness is affected by our context. If we are surrounded by a community that seeks to be sensitive and responsive to grace, our response is more likely to be positive. If the presence of this grace and the importance of our decisions are highlighted and emphasized, the chances of a positive response are heightened. If the trustworthiness of grace is affirmed and demonstrated, that, too, enhances our prospects. In the Christian tradition, this means that participation in the life of a worshipping community provides the "means of grace".

Despite the independence of faith from practice, practice is not unimportant. The lure may call us to attend to it consciously and to develop particular disciplines. For Christians, in addition to active participation in the church, personal prayer and the study of the Bible are typical practices. But we must beware of supposing that faith is given to us as a result of these practices. Faith can exist without them, and they can, and often do, occur as means of gaining merit and thus rejecting grace. The practices by themselves can be "worksrighteousness" as easily as expressions of faith through which faith is deepened.

Faith frees us from the need for special practices. It also frees us to take part in practices that we find beneficial either for ourselves or others. I believe, for example, that Christiansare entirely free to adopt and adapt Buddhist meditational practices as long as they do not suppose that they need these for their salvation or that engaging in such practices lifts them to a higher spiritual level than their fellow Christians who do not do so.

Faith expresses itself most consistently in love of the neighbor, understanding that all other creatures are neighbors. This love is embodied in actions favoring the well being of these neighbors, including, but by no means limited to, their spiritual well being. This well being may be sought either directly for individuals who are at hand or indirectly through socialand ecological analysis and action guided by it. This love is also compassion, feeling with others, and truly hearing them.

From this perspective I ask my questions. Can I understand shinjin as trusting the presentworking of the Primal Vow and deciding to be conformed to it? Or is it a spiritual conditionor secure state attained as a result of meditational practice? Of course, I include thenembutsu and contemplation of the mandala as meditational practices.

The question arises for me because in Buddhism generally it seems that the concern is to attain a spiritual condition or state and that the means of doing so is primarily meditationalpractice. If shinjin is a spiritual state attained through meditiational practice, then thisunderstanding of faith and practice is quite different from my Protestant one. On the other hand, there are passages in Shinran and in these papers that give such priority to shinjinthat it does not seem to be necessarily dependent on practice. It seems to come to us by the power of the Primal Vow. This does not preclude recitation of the nembutsu, but this is more response to the gift than a means of attaining a desired spiritual condition. It is thisimpression that makes Shinran so attractive to Protestant theologians. Have we taken him out of his Buddhist context and projected our ideas upon him? Is trusting Amida simply a step toward the attainment of a higher spiritual condition in which such trust is no longer needed?

In asking these questions I am not assuming that all Pure Land Buddhists speak with onevoice. In Tachikawa's essay faith as trust seems clearly subordinate to meditationalpractice. In Hirota's they seem to be held in dialectical tension. Yokota's work can be interpreted in a way that is closer to my form of Christianity. Nevertheless, I would press for as much clarity as I can get as to whether there are significant differences here betweenHonen and Shinran and among the disciples of each.​

​

So again, one needs to actually deal with Pure Land teachings rather than simply try to rehash an article that was never comprehensive to begin with.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

None of what you said actually dealt with what the history has said on Nestorian Christians preceding Pure Land Buddhism - and is thus an argument of assertion. If you cannot deal even with what non-Christian scholars and Buddhists have said on the issue, then you are not actually dealing with Buddhism. No one said at any point, by the way, that any religion with the concept of salvation by grace is automatically based on Christianity. Judaism itself actually had the same concept before the Followers of the Way (Nazarenes, followers of Christ, etc.) became more than a sect in Judaism by emphasizing it on Christ - so it would be disingenious to say it is solely about Christianity vs. anything else...

One, again, fails to actually deal with Nestorian Christianity that precedeeed development of Pure Land Buddhism and other Buddhists have been honest enough in noting that simple reality. There was a shift in Buddhist belief AT one point where a concept akin to grace emerged, due to the influence of Nestorian missionaries along the Silk Road,emerged Christianity entered Japan at the same time as Buddhism. Early Nestorian missionary bishops taught a doctrine of salvation by grace in such a way that it altered the teaching of even Buddhist rivals, thus proving the antiquity of justification by grace alone through faith alone from even the first and second century.



For the sake of the lurker, as other scholars have noted, one can investigate The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity with Tantric Buddhism (in By Huaiyu Chen in Tang Dynasty and Church of the East theology).

There's also the excellent resource known as
A Buddhist Spectrum: Contributions to Buddhist-Christian Dialouge .. by By Marco Pallis (on what other Buddhist have actually said on Pure Land Buddhism and its development in relation to Christianity).

One can also deal with The Travels of William of Rubruck to the Mongol Court (13th c.), in which Friar William gives large descriptions of the Nestorians at the Mongol court and their interaction with other religions.

Dr. Sam Larsen, professor of missions emeritus, actually did an excellent job in presenting a paper titled Echoes of the Gospel from the First Century: The Mystery of Christ and the Origins of Amida Buddhism

As noted here in the following:

EARLY ASIAN CHRISTIANITY AND BUDDHISM

Dr. Samuel Larsen Reformed Theological Seminary



The encounter between Christianity and the great religions of Asia is ancient and complex, especially the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. The article which follows outlines the case for an early encounter between two religious systems which, in turn, may have helped to precipitate the great division in Buddhism between what is generally considered to be the older form of Buddhism, Theravada, and the newer Mahayana branch, which today claims upwards of eighty per cent of the world’s Buddhists. For evangelical Christian missions, particularly in Japan, the ramifications could be profound: Christianity need not be presented as a recent, European cultural import but rather may legitimately be presented as Asian, having entered Japan contemporaneously with Buddhism from Asia, nearly a millenium before the arrival of Francis Xavier. Furthermore, Japanese Buddhism itself arguably reflects the influence of early Asian Christianity. Finally, additional interdisciplinary collaborative research on the topic is urged. Early Buddhism Buddhism’s Noble Eightfold Path (right belief, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right occupation, right effort, right contemplation, and right concentration) has similarities to the last six of the Hebrew Ten Commandments. It originated in the time of Nehemiah, when Jews were prominent travelers in the Persian Empire along what later became known as the Silk Road.[1]



The Persian Empire stretched from Egypt and Asia Minor to the Indus Valley. Whether and to what degree the founder of Buddhism, Siddharta Gautama, also known as Sakyamuni, may have been influenced by the Mosaic decalogue through exilic Jews is difficult to demonstrate. Sakyamuni’s fundamental world view, as traditionally passed down and as largely continued in Theravada Buddhism, differs radically from the biblical world view. Sakyamuni’s world view was a form of aGnostic, if not atheistic, monism. Buddhism’s world view built heavily upon its antecedent Brahmanic Hinduism, but introduced important deviations. Monism and karma continued to dominate Buddhist thought, as in Hinduism. Sakyamuni, however, denied all permanence short of nirvana (the principle of anicca) and denied the continuation beyond death of a personal soul or “self” (the principle of anatta). Rather, the aggregates that comprise a person were thought, at death, to scatter and to recombine with other aggregates into new individuals who were then born into the world. The individual’s karma, the accumulated debt to cosmic justice, came from those aggregates and was then added to by the individual’s own choices and actions. Salvation from existence in suffering was found by entering nirvana (extinction of the individual consciousness through absorption into oneness with the All) through achieving enlightenment.



The Buddha’s Four Noble Truths posited the existence of suffering, the cause of suffering (desire), the solution to suffering (extinction of desire), and the path necessary to end suffering (achievement of enlightenment through the Noble Eightfold Path). Enlightenment, in turn, depended not upon any other human or divine being, but upon one’s own attainment. Priestly rituals and sacrifices to gods were vain. Sakyamuni’s thought was remarkably revolutionary in his culture. He taught that any male could reach nirvana apart from Brahmanic ritual and without first being reborn through higher castes. However, he taught that a woman, before achieving nirvana, still had to be reborn as a man. Renunciation of all business, family, and social ties and commitments was the required first step for becoming a Buddhist monk on the road to individual enlightenment. In the quest to extinguish desire, the Buddhist seeker of enlightenment cultivated a sense of detachment from the concerns of the world, including family, business, and society. Not surprisingly, Buddhism was opposed by more than one ruler because it was thought to be individualistic[2] and antisocial.



Among the great early divisions in Buddhist thought was the dispute over the role of the Arhant, or forest-dwelling holy man, relative to the role of the scholar, or tradition-continuing authority of the monastic-community. The former looked primarily within for enlightenment, while the latter looked primarily to the Buddhist scriptures as sources for enlightenment[3]. The Great Change in Buddhism Buddhism spread, reaching dominance in India under the Mauryan Empire during the reign of King Ashoka (c. 250 B.C.E.). Thereafter, it began to lose its appeal in India, giving rise to internal tensions, with many contending schools of thought. By the first century C.E., Buddhism was already losing ground in India, where it would eventually be nearly completely absorbed back into Hinduism. In the expansive state of Gandhara, which included much of modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Kashmir, King Kanishka reigned as the third ruler of the Kushan dynasty in the last quarter of the first century C.E.[4] His reign has been dated c. 78-123 C.E.[5] Kanishka is thought by many scholars to have come under the influence of Buddhist reformers and to have convened the Fourth Great Council (c. 90 C.E.), which gave his sanction to the new and revisionist form of Buddhism, Mahayana, as distinguished from the older Theravada form. The philosopher-poet Ashvaghosha also participated in the Fourth Great Council.[6]



Two works attributed to him are particularly influential: the Awakening of Faith and the Buddhacarita, or Life of Buddha. Theravada Buddhism continues to be dominant in Sri Lanka and parts of Southeast Asia, although Buddhism would virtually disappear from India. Mahayana Buddhism, however, which marked a momentous departure from the older Theravada Buddhism, spread dramatically across the rest of Asia, including China, Korea, and Japan.[7] Three of the changes that the Mahayana school introduced into Buddhism are quite profound: 1. Recognition of laity as potential candidates for enlightenment without their having to become renunciants. This innovation made the faith much more congenial to community- and family-oriented societies. To many, Theravada Buddhism had seemed selfish and individualistic, concerned for nothing but one’s own achievement of nirvana.[8] 2. Revision of the principles of anicca and anatta, thus allowing the continuation of personal individual consciousness beyond one’s present life. 3. Development of, and emphasis upon, the concept of the boddhisattva, that is, one who achieves buddhahood but delays entering it in order to assist others along the path to enlightenment. Here the new form of the faith turned from self-salvation (Japanese, jiriki) to salvation-for-others (Japanese, tariki). The concept of transfer of merit ran directly counter to the older Buddhist and Hindu concept of karma. There is no evidence of this phenomenon within Buddhism in the Pali literature, so that the literary evidence dates back only as far as about the beginning of the Christian era.[9] The great change appears to have been accompanied by a major development in art and sculpture. The Buddha, who previously had only been represented by a symbol of his presence, such as footprints or the wheel, now became pictured in human form in art, statuary, and coins.[10]



Amitabha Buddhism, called Amida Buddhism in Japan, is embraced today by many Japanese. An early form of the boddhisattva ideal came to be expressed in Amitabha, the Lord of Light, who came to earth for the express purpose of being born into the human race in order to live so perfectly that his merit would save the world. In one major branch of Amitabha’s devotees, salvation is unattainable by any works at all, but only on the merits of Amitabha alone, received by his grace through faith in him. Even on one’s death bed, it is sufficient to call upon the name of the lord Amitabha to be saved and at death to be reborn in a Pure Land in the West. In that land the believer may enjoy personal conscious fellowship for a new eon with the lord Amitabha himself and with others who have also trusted him. From the Pure Land, the believer may enter nirvana directly, without having to go through subsequent reincarnations. What Brought About the Great Change in Buddhism? The question arises: How did the dramatic changes in Buddhism come about? There are at least four possibilities. 1. The first possibility is that the changes were relatively late, many centuries after their traditionally ascribed innovators, but were attributed to Ashvagosha and others by the accretion of legend over time. Because the original writings were on such materials as leaves rather than on clay tablets, and because the climate was not conducive to their preservation, the autographs have long been lost. Nevertheless, through the process of textual criticism, scholars have attempted to reconstruct and date the original works of Ashvagosha, among others. The Chinese and Tibetan translations of the Buddhacarita are apparently complete, whereas the Sanskrit copies are not.[11] Although some scholars still dispute the authorship and date of composition, most now recognize that Ashvagosha wrote the Buddhacarita and accept a date near the end of the first century C.E. The Awakening of Faith is also probably the work of Ashvagosha.[12] The Lotus of the True Law, while perhaps not written by Ashvagosha, may nevertheless also date from about the same time.[13] 2. The second possibility is that the changes were much earlier, at least in essential features, and simply became popular around the first century B.C.E.[14] One of the difficulties with such a view is that of dating the evidence adduced.[15] Sculpture, art, or other similar phenomena are often difficult to date with certainty unless they are directly incorporated into a clearly datable context or unless they include a dated inscription. Some scholars may date such artifacts one or two centuries later than would others. This view therefore remains unproven.



Some have attempted to find antecedents for the changes in the rising popularity of bakhti (devotion to a deity) as a development within surrounding Hinduism. Others have pointed to Greek or Persian antecedents as an explanation for the sources of the great sea change, as it were, toward Mahayana within Buddhism. Accounting for the sudden popularity of ideas supposedly long within the culture is still a problem for this view. Early Buddhist literature contains references to the Buddha as an arhant, as a Tathagata, and as a boddhisattva. The arhant was esteemed to be a wise and holy teacher. The meaning of Tathagata is less clear, but it may refer to “thusness and suchness”[16] or to “one who has gone this way before.”[17] The frequency and usage of each term may be observed over time, making it possible to trace out important general trends. For example, the first trend is that the term arhant as a title of respect tends gradually to give place (although not universally) to Tathagata, and the title Tathagata in turn tends to gives place to bodhisattva. The second trend is that the meaning of bodhisattva appears to undergo a shift. Early usage of the term refers simply to one who has completed the required steps to enlightenment and is awaiting entrance into nirvana, that is, buddhahood. Later uses of boddhisattva begin to refer to one who delays his own entrance into nirvana for the sake of others and who desires to save the world through gracious transfer of his own merit. The latter usage of this term is difficult to date earlier than the beginning of the Christian era. T. O. Ling concludes that The worship of Amida in Mahayana appears to be traceable back to just sbefore time of Nagarjuna, i.e., to about beginning of 2nd century C.E., since Nagarjuna is said to have derived his knowledge of cult of Amida from his teacher Saraha.



The Greater Sukhavativyuha Sutra, which was translated into Chinese about beginning of second half of 2nd century C.E., relates story of Dharmakara, who is represented as having lived many aeons ago, and who, although he could have entered into Buddhahood, chose not to do so, but made vow that he would wait until he could achieve such Buddhahood as would make him lord of a paradise (sukhavati), to which all who meditated upon this paradise ten times should be admitted. This he achieved as the Buddha Amitabha.[18] 3. The third possiblity is that the changes were introduced by Ashvagosha and his contemporaries, under the sponsorship of King Kanishka of Gandhara, c. 90 C.E. Innovations may, however, have been spontaneous and independent of outside influence.[19] According to this view, the timing and striking ideational parallels between the new form of Buddhism and the external cultural influences are merely remarkable coincidences, all the more remarkable since the actual development of the ideas, and not simply their popular acceptance, took place so rapidly. 4. The fourth possibility is that the changes were introduced as tradition holds, circa 90 C.E., in Gandhara, but that those innovations were prompted by contact with outside cultural and religious influences.[20] In light of the preceding discussion, the fourth of these possibilities is intriguing.



The following considerations summarize lines of reasoning in its support: First, the overland route, along what would become known as the Silk Road, was already well-traveled in the sixth century B.C.E. under the Persian Empire. Alexander the Great’s empire, though divided soon after his death, left behind a Greek cultural corridor extending across South Central Asia to the Indus Valley. In the early first century C.E., Greco-Bactrian kings still held sway in Gandhara, athwart “the Bactrian bridge between east and west.”[21] Second, the maritime route between the Persian Gulf and Northwest India was dominated by shore-hugging, light Arab vessels until c. 40 C.E. At that time, Romans learned to use the monsoons to permit large ocean-going vessels to sail from the Red Sea directly to West and Northwest India during July to September, returning during December and January, following the seasonal prevailing winds.[22] Roman vessels were large, and as many as one hundred twenty made the voyage each year.[23] Third, although some have claimed that cultural dissonances prevented trade from becoming a significant carrier of culture,[24] Edward Conze makes an intriguing observation:



The Mahayana developed in North-West India and South India, the two regions where Buddhism was most exposed to non-Indian influences, to the impact of Greek art in its Hellenistic and Romanized forms and to the influence of ideas from both the Mediterranean and the Iranian world.[25] Undeniably the means, the motive, and the opportunity were all manifestly available, by both overland and maritime routes, for lay and apostolic Christian missionary activity. Fourth, the Acts of Thomas, a Gnostic work written c. 200 C.E., speaks of the encounter between Judas Thomas and a King Gundaphore. The Acts of Thomas may reflect an earlier tradition relating the ministry of the Apostle Thomas in India. King Gundaphore’s once-doubted historicity is now well established as one of the last of the Greco-Bactrian kings, governing Gandhara from his capital at Taxila. Coins with his image and inscription have been found scattered throughout the region, lending greater credibility, although not certitude, to the legendary accounts of the Apostle Thomas’ missions, first to North India and later to the South of India, where the Church of Saint Thomas still exists today.[26]



Some Buddhists counter by admitting major parallels between the teachings of Jesus and those of Mahayana Buddhists, and acknowledge that, prima facie, the evidence appears to support dependence of one upon the other. However, they suggest that the dependence is that of Christ upon the Buddhist teachings.[27] They postulate that Jesus, during the interval between his appearance in the Temple at Jerusalem at age twelve and his commencement of public teaching at age thirty, became a pilgrim and found his way to a Buddhist sage, under whose tutelage he learned before returning to his homeland.[28] The similarities, according to this line of reasoning, are to be explained as the result of Buddhism’s direct influence upon the founder of Christianity, rather than the reverse. There is, however, no firm historical evidence to establish such a theory, and it remains entirely speculative. ​

​

• 
  
  Religious sites, relics indicate Christ beat Buddha to Japan
  
  
  The Concept of Grace in Both Christianity and Pure Land Buddhism Examined
  
  The Concept of Grace in Both Christianity and Pure Land Buddhism Examined

And of course, there are other discussions besides this one where the issue has been covered before - as seen here:

Ishraq, the religion of light is a direct reference to Jesus, it is not an exclusive term used by the Assyrians. If you would like to know more about our story, there is a great book called "the lost history of Christianity".

What influence do you think the Christocentric religions like Nestorianism and Manicheanism had on the evolution of Mahayana Buddhism (specifically pure land, the messianic idea of the future Buddha Maitrya whose name is thought to be connected with Mithras/ Mihr , the Shamballah myth, and Tantric Buddhism)? Centeral Asian peoples like the Sogdians, Turks, Uighers, Mongols , and Persians often practiced Manicheanism or Nestorian Christianity. Central Asia is thought to have been the birth place of Mahayana by many scholars. Manicheans and Buddhists also practiced their faith in China for centuries. Eventually the Chinese Emperor issued an edict saying that only non-Chinese living in China could practice the faith because it was portraying itself as a school of Buddhism and confusing the simple. At times it can even be hard to tell if a text or inscription was Buddhist, Nestorian, or Manichean without close inspection. Interestingly both the Nestorian and Manichean faith were called "The Religion of Light" and for a time Manicheans were even put under the Nestorian bishops by the Chinese emperor.

Ishraq, the religion of light is a direct reference to Jesus, it is not an exclusive term used by the Assyrians. If you would like to know more about our story, there is a great book called "the lost history of Christianity".

I know that our scholars helped to translate writings for buddhists, I'll get the exact quote and paste it later.

I'm re-reading "Religions of the Silk Road" by Richard Foltz. I know it has some good stuff I can post.

The Tantric Vehicle of Vajrayana[bless and do not curse]-[bless and do not curse]The Order of Nazorean Essenes

http://www.angelfire.com/vt/OkarResearch/mani2.html

These pages have some interesting articles on this subject.

 

[Yoder777]

If you go back to the beginning of this thread until now, I've demonstrated several times how Pure Land Buddhist teachings are rooted in the teachings of the Buddha himself. May we all live in peace.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

When Nestorian Christians were pressing across Central Asia during the sixth an
d seventh centuries, they met the missionaries and saints of an equally confident and expansionist religion: Mahayana Buddhism. Buddhists too wanted to take their saving message to the world, and launched great missions from India's monasteries and temples. In this diverse world, Buddhist and Christian monasteries were likely to stand side by side, as neighbors and even, sometimes, as collaborators. Some historians believe that Nestorian missionaries influenced the religious practices of the Buddhist religion then developing in Tibet. Monks spoke to monks.

In presenting their faith, Christians naturally used the cultural forms that would be familiar to Asians. They told their stories in the forms of sutras, verse patterns already made famous by Buddhist missionaries and teachers. A stunning collection of Jesus Sutras was found in caves at Dunhuang, in northwest China. Some Nestorian writings draw heavily on Buddhist ideas, as they translate prayers and Christian services in ways that would make sense to Asian readers. In some texts, the Christian phrase "angels and archangels and hosts of heaven" is translated into the language of buddhas and devas.

One story in particular suggests an almost shocking degree of collaboration between the faiths. In 782, the Indian Buddhist missionary Prajna arrived in Chang'an, bearing rich treasures of sutras and other scriptures. Unfortunately, these were written in Indian languages. He consulted the local Nestorian bishop, Adam, who had already translated parts of the Bible into Chinese. Together, Buddhist and Christian scholars worked amiably together for some years to translate seven copious volumes of Buddhist wisdom. Probably, Adam did this as much from intellectual curiosity as from ecumenical good will, and we can only guess about the conversations that would have ensued: Do you really care more about relieving suffering than atoning for sin? And your monks meditate like ours do?

These efforts bore fruit far beyond China. Other residents of Chang'an at this very time included Japanese monks, who took these very translations back with them to their homeland. In Japan, these works became the founding texts of the great Buddhist schools of the Middle Ages. All the famous movements of later Japanese history, including Zen, can be traced to one of those ancient schools and, ultimately - incredibly - to the work of a Christian bishop.

By the 12th century, flourishing churches in China and southern India were using the lotus-cross. The lotus is a superbly beautiful flower that grows out of muck and slime. No symbol could better represent the rise of the soul from the material, the victory of enlightenment over ignorance, desire, and attachment. For 2,000 years, Buddhist artists have used the lotus to convey these messages in countless paintings and sculptures. The Christian cross, meanwhile, teaches a comparable lesson, of divine victory over sin and injustice, of the defeat of the world. Somewhere in Asia, Yeshua's forgotten followers made the daring decision to integrate the two emblems, which still today forces us to think about the parallels between the kinds of liberation and redemption offered by each faith.

Christianity, for much of its history, was just as much an Asian religion as Buddhism. Asia's Christian churches survived for more than a millennium, and not until the 10th century, halfway through Christian history, did the number of Christians in Europe exceed that in Asia.

What ultimately obliterated the Asian Christians were the Mongol invasions, which spread across Central Asia and the Middle East from the 1220s onward. From the late 13th century, too, the world entered a terrifying era of climate change, of global cooling, which severely cut food supplies and contributed to mass famine. The collapse of trade and commerce crippled cities, leaving the world much poorer and more vulnerable. Intolerant nationalism wiped out Christian communities in China, while a surging militant Islam destroyed the churches of Central Asia.

But awareness of this deep Christian history contributes powerfully to understanding the future of the religion, as much as its past. For long centuries, Asian Christians kept up neighborly relations with other faiths, which they saw not as deadly rivals but as fellow travelers on the road to enlightenment. Their worldview differed enormously from the norms that developed in Europe.

​

As noted scholar Philip Jenkins noted best in the review:

The most stunningly successful of these eastern Christian bodies was the Church of the East, often called the Nestorian church. While the Western churches were expanding their influence within the framework of the Roman Empire, the Syriac-speaking churches colonized the vast Persian kingdom that ruled from Syria to Pakistan and the borders of China. From their bases in Mesopotamia - modern Iraq - Nestorian Christians carried out their vast missionary efforts along the Silk Route that crossed Central Asia. By the eighth century, the Church of the East had an extensive structure across most of central Asia and China, and in southern India. The church had senior clergy - metropolitans - in Samarkand and Bokhara, in Herat in Afghanistan. A bishop had his seat in Chang'an, the imperial capital of China, which was then the world's greatest superpower.

When Nestorian Christians were pressing across Central Asia during the sixth an
d seventh centuries, they met the missionaries and saints of an equally confident and expansionist religion: Mahayana Buddhism. Buddhists too wanted to take their saving message to the world, and launched great missions from India's monasteries and temples. In this diverse world, Buddhist and Christian monasteries were likely to stand side by side, as neighbors and even, sometimes, as collaborators. Some historians believe that Nestorian missionaries influenced the religious practices of the Buddhist religion then developing in Tibet. Monks spoke to monks.

In presenting their faith, Christians naturally used the cultural forms that would be familiar to Asians. They told their stories in the forms of sutras, verse patterns already made famous by Buddhist missionaries and teachers. A stunning collection of Jesus Sutras was found in caves at Dunhuang, in northwest China. Some Nestorian writings draw heavily on Buddhist ideas, as they translate prayers and Christian services in ways that would make sense to Asian readers. In some texts, the Christian phrase "angels and archangels and hosts of heaven" is translated into the language of buddhas and devas.

One story in particular suggests an almost shocking degree of collaboration between the faiths. In 782, the Indian Buddhist missionary Prajna arrived in Chang'an, bearing rich treasures of sutras and other scriptures. Unfortunately, these were written in Indian languages. He consulted the local Nestorian bishop, Adam, who had already translated parts of the Bible into Chinese. Together, Buddhist and Christian scholars worked amiably together for some years to translate seven copious volumes of Buddhist wisdom. Probably, Adam did this as much from intellectual curiosity as from ecumenical good will, and we can only guess about the conversations that would have ensued: Do you really care more about relieving suffering than atoning for sin? And your monks meditate like ours do?

These efforts bore fruit far beyond China. Other residents of Chang'an at this very time included Japanese monks, who took these very translations back with them to their homeland. In Japan, these works became the founding texts of the great Buddhist schools of the Middle Ages. All the famous movements of later Japanese history, including Zen, can be traced to one of those ancient schools and, ultimately - incredibly - to the work of a Christian bishop.

By the 12th century, flourishing churches in China and southern India were using the lotus-cross. The lotus is a superbly beautiful flower that grows out of muck and slime. No symbol could better represent the rise of the soul from the material, the victory of enlightenment over ignorance, desire, and attachment. For 2,000 years, Buddhist artists have used the lotus to convey these messages in countless paintings and sculptures. The Christian cross, meanwhile, teaches a comparable lesson, of divine victory over sin and injustice, of the defeat of the world. Somewhere in Asia, Yeshua's forgotten followers made the daring decision to integrate the two emblems, which still today forces us to think about the parallels between the kinds of liberation and redemption offered by each faith.

Christianity, for much of its history, was just as much an Asian religion as Buddhism. Asia's Christian churches survived for more than a millennium, and not until the 10th century, halfway through Christian history, did the number of Christians in Europe exceed that in Asia.

What ultimately obliterated the Asian Christians were the Mongol invasions, which spread across Central Asia and the Middle East from the 1220s onward. From the late 13th century, too, the world entered a terrifying era of climate change, of global cooling, which severely cut food supplies and contributed to mass famine. The collapse of trade and commerce crippled cities, leaving the world much poorer and more vulnerable. Intolerant nationalism wiped out Christian communities in China, while a surging militant Islam destroyed the churches of Central Asia.

But awareness of this deep Christian history contributes powerfully to understanding the future of the religion, as much as its past. For long centuries, Asian Christians kept up neighborly relations with other faiths, which they saw not as deadly rivals but as fellow travelers on the road to enlightenment. Their worldview differed enormously from the norms that developed in Europe.

​

As it concerns similarities of Pure Land Buddhism and Christianity when it comes to influence - as noted best here:

I have been thinking about the ways in which The Lord's Prayer could and could not be regarded as a Pureland Buddhist text...

Our Father
The Hebrew "Abba" that Jesus used to address God is rather close to th Japanese Oyasamma ("honoured parent") that is used to refer to Amida Buddha.

who art in heaven
This is equivalent to "in the Pure Land"

hallowed be Thy Name
The hallowing of the Name is nembutsu practice.

Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven
The work of Buddha's is to create Pure Lands.

Give us each day our daily bread
Nourish us with both physical and spiritual food - but it is at this point in the prayer that a difference starts to enter between the Christian and Buddhist outlook, for this is where the Christian starts to think of God as controlling the universe. Amida does not have responsibility fo our food supply.

and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us
We are all bombu, and it is beings such as we who are the special object of Amida's vow. In Pureland we would not petition Amida in this way. We would know that (a) we do trespass, (b) we are accpted. The issue of judgement and forgiveness is handled differently in Pureland.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil
Here again the attitude is a little different, but the difference is not huge. Amida Buddha does deliver us from evil in the sense that if we have faith we pass to the Pure Land rather than circling in samsara reaping the consequences of past karma in confusing ways.

For Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory
Amida is Amitabha - unmeasureable light

for ever and ever
and Amitayus - unmeasureably long lived

Amen
This word has many suggested etymologies but seems to be related to the word for faith. Of course, it also sounds not totally unlike Amida.

So putting all this together, if a similar prayer were constructed from an Amida Pureland perspective it might go something like this:

Oh Nyorai
Coming from the Land of Bliss
Namo Amuida Bu
May your vows prevail
Here as in your precious land
May we who often fail
Be nourished by your kindly hand
We who tempted
We who succomb
We trust in you
We who are bombu
Oh Amitabha
Let your Light shine
Oh Amitayus
Unimpeded, imcomparable, and fine
Namandabu Namandabu Namandabu

....There is some evidence that Nestorian Christianity influenced Pure Land Buddhism in China. Therefore, it makes sense that there are some similarities. The Lord's prayer and prayers for the dead for example.​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

....There is some evidence that Nestorian Christianity influenced Pure Land Buddhism in China. Therefore, it makes sense that there are some similarities. The Lord's prayer and prayers for the dead for example.​

Before going further, There has always been significant influence of Christianity on Japanese Buddhism and its development - especially if keeping up with the Hidden Christians of Japan and other similar groups. It has never been a small thing when seeing the Nestorian influences on Early Buddhism..

But with that said, Francis Woods did an excellent presentation on the way that Buddhism and Nestorian Christianity ended up interacting over time due to the avenues of the Silk Road - showing the ways that there was both convergent evolution and influence exercised by both on one another in their developments in certain areas.

Some of the things she noted are echoed by Dr. Martin Palmer in what he has noted on Nestorian Steele (as mentioned earlier):

Moreover, as it concerns Prince Shōtoku Taishi (the First Great Patron of Buddhism in Japan and Imperial Regent of Japan in Early 7th Century) and
his Contribution to Buddhism in Japan, I appreciate what another noted in their review entitled Prince Shotoku and Ancient Christianity (by Arimasa Kubo ):

A history book records that in 578 AD Mar Celghis , a Nestorian, and his family came from a “western land” to China and settled at Lintao, a about 500 km west of Changan. That is to say that Nestorians already came to China more before 600 AD. Professor Sakae Ikeda of Kyoto University, who is a Nestorian scholar and also a Hata family scholar writes a Nestorian named Mar Toma served Prince Shotoku at his side around 600 AD. Mar Toma means “Master Thomas” in Aramaic, and is the same name as Apostle Thomas. He was believed to be a leader of the Nestorians who came to Japan at the time of Prince Shotoku. So, Christianity was already in Japan at the time of Prince Shotoku. I believe it came to Japan earlier than this. There is a proof that leads us to believe it came no later than the fourth century. ....There are many myth associated with who Prince Shotuku really like. However, after several hundred years after Prince Shotoku passed away, adoration for Prince Shotoku swelled to bear many legends regarding him. And strangely enough, we see evidences of the stories of Nestorian amd the Anciient Christianity believed by the Hatas might have been appropriated into the legends of Prince Shotoku. Prince Shotoku is said to be the “Savior Bodhisattva” who was born in a stable. That is to say that he was a kind of savior. Prince Shotoku was called “Prince Umayado (Stable),” Umayado means a stable....It is normally considered derogatory to use a word such as “stable” in calling a person of noble birth and it should be avoided. However, the “Prince Umayado (Stable) was used as an honorific title. Dr. Kunitake Kume speculates that the Christian story that “Mary born Christ in a stable” was incorporated into Prince Shotoku’s legends. There are no one but two: Jesus and Prince Shotoku who were born in a stable among the saints in the world. That is not all. In fact the story of the birth of Prince Shotoku and that of the birth of Jesus Christ are in reality are very similar to the details of sequence of the stories. The author of “Buddhism and Nestorianism in the Japanese History,” Akinori Tomiyama, states as follows: “In mid .Heian era, at the time Michizane Sugahara was watching the moon in exile, there are evidences that intellectuals in Kyoto were reading the ‘Book of Luke’ (the Gospel according to Luke). It can be proven indirectly by ‘Legends and the Record of Prince Shotoku’ (917) which was believed to be written by Kanesuke Fujiwara. That is to say that there the birth story of Jesus, the ‘Book of Luke’ 1:26~2:21 is written exactly in the same sequence as the birth story of Prince Shotoku.” So, he describes it in details. Also, when you look at the legends concerning Prince Shotoku, we notice there are many other stories that remind us of the Biblical story. According to a legend, the “Savior Bodhisattva” appeared in the dream of Empress Kanjin, mother of Prince Shotoku, and prophesied the birth of Prince Shotoku. Similarly in the Bible, an archiangel Gabriel appeared in front of Mary and foretold the birth of Jesus. The other legend says that Saint Nichira, a Paekche, worshipped Prince Shotoku calling him the “Savior Bodhisattva.” But as it turned out, he was later assassinated. This indeed remind us of a story in the Bible that John the Baptist worshipped Jesus calling him the “Savior” but later he was assassinated.....

Masanori Tomiyama also writes as follows: In the “Book of Daigo ‘Legends and the Record of Prince Shotoku’ (13th Century) not only contains the resurrection story of Prince Shotoku, but the composition of the whole book appears to have copied after the “Book of John.” This gives a credence to the fact that an entire translation not an abridged version of the Bible might have been available in Japan.” That is to say that the story of resurrection of Christ in the “Gospel According to John” might had been incorporated into the legend of Prince Shotoku. Regarding the other legends of Prince Shotoku, he writes as follows: “For example, as something to remind us of the ‘Book of Matthew’ 25:34 and thereafter, there is a story of Prince giving the clothing and food to a starved at Mount Kataoka. Subsequent to the event, the starved man died and buried, but he resurrected several days later and only his clothing was said to be left on his coffin. This story from the ‘Chronicles of the Japan’ reminds us of the same vein of thought as the ‘Book of John’ 20:1~10.” Jesus taught us that if anyone gives food and clothing to a starved, he will be included in salvation; it is same as giving them to Christ himself. Also, the Bible says that when Christ died, buried, and after he resurrected only his clothing was left at his tomb. Prince Shotoku is also respected as the “founder of carpentry” and treated as the “protector of carpenters.” Among the carpenter there is even a “Guild of Prince.” Similarly, Jesus’ profession was carpenter. Shinran and Nestorian Philosophy As you can see legends about Prince Shotoku in later periods include many of those that were Christian origins. This is due to the fact that there were people who spread the story of Christ from the ancient times in Japan. Christianity came to Japan in early days of Japan. Its thinking was incorporated, or in protest to it, there were people who tried to make Prince Shotoku the Messiah. Perhaps, this was a reason behind the legend of Prince Shotoku among the people. Later, the founder of the True Pure Land sect of Buddhism, Shinran, made 115 hymns of Japanese translation of praise entitled, ‘Praise of the Great King Asan Prince Shotoku.’ Prince Shotoku who is recited there is the exact Japanese translation of ‘Legends and the Record of Prince Shotoku’ by Kanesuke Sugawara. “Christ”, who was hidden there, must have given great influence upon the faith formation of Shinran......

....Prince Shotoku built the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno-ji (Four Devas) temple in Osaka. There was the welfare facility called “Shiko-in” attached to it. They are four institutions: “Seyaku-in” (pharmacy where free dispensation of medicine is available), “Ryobyo-in” (free hospital, clinic), “Hiden-in” (Sanctuary for those with no relatives), and “Keiden-in” (Sanctuary of religious, arts, and music studies). Prince Shotoku was the first one to begin the large scale social works, philanthropic, welfare works in Japan. Japanese Buddhist scholars praise Prince Shotoku for starting these philanthropic welfare works first in Japan that were heretofore not practiced by Buddhists in China nor in the Korean Peninsula in those days. However, these did not come from the Buddhist philosophy. Observing China and the Korean Peninsula of those days, their Buddhism was a guardian Buddhism for the state; it was far apart from salvation of individuals. You may think Mahayana Buddhism has the philosophy of “mercy.” But Buddhist scholars state that the philosophy of mercy was not implemented as a pragmatic work in ancient China nor in the Korean Peninsula. As it turned out that these facilities such as “Keiden-in,” “Seyaku-in,” “Ryobyo-in,” and “Hiden-in” are identical to those built by Nestorians all over the Silk Road. Nestorians built many facilities like these in Mongol and China. They worked unselfishly by building free schools, pharmacies, sanatoriums, orphanages, and hospitals ...They did not only preach the Gospel, but they also stressed philanthropic and welfare works. Due to their work, their Nestorianism penetrated into people early on.

....Why did Prince Shotoku carry on the works of the Nestorians in Japan? It is because there were Nestorians by the side of Prince Shotoku. And their advice influenced greatly Prince Shotoku. Professor Sakae Ikeda of Kyoto University writes that the first person who built an orphanage in Japan was a Nestorian named Raka. A Legend of Prince Shotoku: Borrowing from the story of Aaron’s staff [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno-ji, to which Prince Shotoku built “Keiden-in,” “Seyaku-in,” “Ryobyo-in,” and “Hiden-in” nearby, is now a Buddhist temple. However, this temple has a remarkable feature that cannot be seen at a normal temple. The entrance to this temple is no other than the great torii (gateway) of a Shinto shrine. Moreover, the torii was there since the time of Prince Shotoku. Though, it was made of wood at the time of Prince Shotoku not a present stone built. When I asked a Buddhist priest about the temple, he replied: “Once upon a time, since Prince Shotoku prayed to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno before battles this temple was built.” But, there is “Tamatsukuri Inari (god of harvest) Shrine” immediately nearby. According to the shrine history, Prince Shotoku prayed not to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno but to a god of the shrine. Here, too, we see an evidence of the Buddhist fabricating the history. [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno-ji temple used to be a Shinto shrine. Also, according to the shrine history of Tamatsukuri Inari Shrine, Prince Shotoku made a pilgrimage to the shrine before battles and prayed as follows: “If we are to win this battle, let a bud grow on this branch.” And he inserted a chestnut branch. Then, it is said that it sprouted a bud. That was a sign that a god was with him. This story, too, is very similar to the story of “a bud sprouted on the High Priest Aaron’s staff” of the Old Testament isn’t it? It was a sign that God was with Aaron. (Numbers 17: 5~8)Why did Prince Shotoku carry on the works of the Nestorians in Japan? It is because there were Nestorians by the side of Prince Shotoku. And their advice influenced greatly Prince Shotoku. Professor Sakae Ikeda of Kyoto University writes that the first person who built an orphanage in Japan was a Nestorian named Raka. A Legend of Prince Shotoku: Borrowing from the story of Aaron’s staff [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno-ji, to which Prince Shotoku built “Keiden-in,” “Seyaku-in,” “Ryobyo-in,” and “Hiden-in” nearby, is now a Buddhist temple. However, this temple has a remarkable feature that cannot be seen at a normal temple. The entrance to this temple is no other than the great torii (gateway) of a Shinto shrine. Moreover, the torii was there since the time of Prince Shotoku. Though, it was made of wood at the time of Prince Shotoku not a present stone built. When I asked a Buddhist priest about the temple, he replied: “Once upon a time, since Prince Shotoku prayed to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno before battles this temple was built.” But, there is “Tamatsukuri Inari (god of harvest) Shrine” immediately nearby. According to the shrine history, Prince Shotoku prayed not to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno but to a god of the shrine. Here, too, we see an evidence of the Buddhist fabricating the history. [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno-ji temple used to be a Shinto shrine. Also, according to the shrine history of Tamatsukuri Inari Shrine, Prince Shotoku made a pilgrimage to the shrine before battles and prayed as follows: “If we are to win this battle, let a bud grow on this branch.” And he inserted a chestnut branch. Then, it is said that it sprouted a bud. That was a sign that a god was with him. This story, too, is very similar to the story of “a bud sprouted on the High Priest Aaron’s staff” of the Old Testament isn’t it? It was a sign that God was with Aaron. (Numbers 17: 5~8)...

....I stated that there were many Christians such as Nestorians, the Hatas (ancient Christians who came from the Central Aaia) around Prince Shotoku, and under their influence he started the philanthropic and welfare work. In the world, Prince Shotoku is generally considered as the “central figure of the Japanese Buddhism” and is responsible for spreading Buddhism in Japan. In conclusion, I believe it is mistaken. Prince Shotoku, in fact, had the same philosophy and religion (Christian Shintoism) as the Hatas. But Buddhism later became a kind of Japanese “national religion” and began to rule Japan autocratically. At that time, Prince Shotoku was given a new identity as the “central figure of Japanese Buddhism” and the “great contributor to Buddhism.” Firstly, the whole family and relatives of Prince Shotoku were murdered by Buddhists. Had Prince Shotoku been the central figure of Buddhism, why did Buddhists murder his whole family and relatives? Also, Prince Shotoku himself appears to be assassinated. Since Prince Shotoku, in those days, held the position next to the emperor, it was natural to spend several months of “mogari,” a ceremony for the repose of the soul. However, the record shows little or no period of “mogari” for Prince Shotoku. It appears that he was buried immediately. It was same in the case of Emperor Sushun who was murdered by Buddhists. He, too, was buried immediately without having a period of “mogari.” In order to appease a vengiful spirit, set himself up as a great person In those days, there was a belief system among the people that when an innocent was murdered he would become a “vengeful spirit.” So, it was necessary to quickly put the lid on the coffin and seal it. Also, in those days, there was a thought that the best way to appease the vengeful spirit was to set himself up as a great person. They thought if a person was thanked and adored as a great individual even a vengeful spirit would be appeased. So, for those who murdered Prince Shotoku, the quickest and easies way to protect themselves from the vengeful spirit was to set himself as a great person. That is to set Prince Shotoku as the “central figure of Japanese Buddhism” and the “great contributor to Buddhism” and have people venerate him. They thought that by doing so the vengeful spirit would be appeased and Buddhism would spread. For them it was two birds with one stone solution. I do not have enough space here to write about this in detail. I recommend for those who are interested to read the “Sealed Ancient History of Japanese and Jewish 2, Volume of Buddhism and Nestorianism."...

....Prince Shotoku went after his demise to “Tenju-koku” = heaven Back in 16th century, during the Azuchi Momoyama period, Ujisato Gamau (1556~95), the lord of Aizu, became Christian as a result of missionary work of Ukon Takayama. He was a Christian lord with the baptized name of Leo, but the Buddhist world of Aizu advertised his as an ardent Buddhist. When the Buddhist influence becomes strong, all the past great men become the great contributors to Buddhism. It has been repeated many times in Japanese history. So, we believe that Prince Shotoku’s case was no exception. After the demise of Prince Shotoku, an embroidery picture that depicts the “Tenju-koku” where the Prince went still exists at the Chugu-ji temple in Nara. This was embroidered by Kuma Hata who was commissioned by Princess Taratsume Tachibana thinking of the Prince. It is the picture called the “Tenju-koku Mandara (Mandala) Shuchomei.” If you look at it, it is obvious that the concept of Paradise other than Buddhism coexists. Masanori Tomiyama, who studied this aspect, writes, “I believe that the ’Tenju-koku Mandara Shuchomei’ undoubtedly means heaven of Jesus.” “’Tenju-koku’ where Prince Shotoku died and went to is the oldest concept of Paradise in Japan. This “Tenju-koku” or “Heaven” probably influenced the Pure Land concept of later Japanese Buddhism....

....Prince Shotoku himself was a man who must have 5 had a thought of this “Tenju-koku.” Also, there is a shrine called “Kamei-doh” at the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]enno-ji temple built by Prince Shotoku. It existed since the time of Prince Shotoku. The faith that is practiced there is very similar to that of the faith of the Bethesda Pond (if you enter the pond while water is being stirred, you will be healed)....Prince Shotoku is a central figure who convinced many Japanese that “Japan is a Buddhist nation.” However, upon careful investigation, Prince Shotoku was more involved in Christianity rather than Buddhism. Later when Buddhism controlled Japan like the national religion, the real image of Prince Shotoku was buried forever. Then, he became the “central figure of Japanese Buddhism.” Nevertheless, we should find the truth in the important part of the Japanese history. Christianity is never a new religion that came recently to Japan or a western religion. It is the most precious faith that our ancestors also believed.​

Additionally, as another noted wisely from one prominent Buddhist resource:

​

THE JESUS SUTRAS
Some Early Morning Thoughts on What Might Have Been and Perhaps What Could Yet Be

James Ishmael Ford

11 January 2015

First Unitarian Church
Providence, Rhode Island

Text

Compassionate Father, Radiant Son,
Pure Wind King – three in one.

Supreme King, Will of Ages,
Compassionate joyous lamb
Loving all who suffer
Fearless as you strive for us
Free us of the karma of our lives
Bring us back to our original nature
Delivered from all danger.

Great Teacher: I stand in awe of the Father
Great Teacher: I am awed by the Holy Lord
Great Teacher: I am speechless before the King of Dharma
Great Teacher: I am dazzled by the Enlightened Mind
Great Teacher: You who do everything to save us.

Praise of the Three Sacred Powers

Okay, I’m a sucker for those historical “what if” kind of things. You know, what if the Spanish Armada defeated the English, or what if the South had won the Civil War, or the Nazi’s the Second World War. Decades later, I’m still haunted from reading Philip K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle about that last what if. People have been telling me for years I have to read Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Years of Rice and Salt, where the plague takes away ninety nine percent of Europe’s population instead of a third, leaving the world to be shaped by Muslim, Chinese, and indigenous American cultures.

Of course my favorites of such things are religious, or, at least have a religious thread. Kind of obvious, I guess. Which I’m sure is in part why people keep pointing me to that Years of Rice and Salt. And, so, of course, why one of my favorite books in recent years is Michael Chabon’s The Yiddish Policemen’s Union, which posits a world where Israel didn’t happen. There are tons of them, and I could go on about them at length.

However, today I’d like to hold up the intriguing realities of Eastern and Western religious encounter and speculate just a little on some of the “what ifs” that with just a few things going one way rather than another could have left us with a very different Christianity, or, at least, a very interesting and vibrant alternative possibility to what has become normative in the West.

I suspect most of us here are familiar with the fact that the story of the Buddha made its way West in the early centuries of the Church, and the Buddha even ended up a saint in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as Josaphat of Sts Barlaam and Josaphat. Their feast, admittedly not celebrated so much since the historical connections were made, is celebrated on the 27th of November for the Romans, and on the 26th of August in the Orthodox calendar. So, it doesn’t take a lot of heavy lifting intellectually to figure the favor was returned. And it was.

A lot happened on that famous Silk Road that joined East and West.

In 1625 workers digging near a temple discovered a large stone monument. Local intellectuals began to examine it and discovered it recorded the story of a long lost Christian mission to China. Written in Chinese and Syriac it recounted the early Seventh century mission of Bishop Alopen and the establishment of the “Luminous Religion,” a Chinese branch of the Church of the East, sometimes called the Nestorian Church. What’s particularly interesting is how the tablet’s Christianity doesn’t quite line up with Nestorian orthodoxy in some interesting ways. The trinity, for instance, is mentioned, as is the incarnation, but there’s no reference to a crucifixion or resurrection. It was also clear that the Luminous Religion had synthesized with both Buddhism and most of all with Taoism. All so tantalizing, but just this one large stone monument left as testimony to something long gone.

It appeared that during the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution in the middle of the Ninth Century, while it knocked Buddhism back on its heels, it also wiped out several smaller religious communities, including the Luminous Religion, which apparently the authorities considered a Buddhist heresy.

So, what the Luminous Religion actually was remained a delicious hint at something, but no one was sure of what precisely. Then on the 25th of June, in 1900 a Daoist monk stumbled onto a cache of manuscripts hidden in a cave near Dunhuang, an ancient city along that Silk Road. This discovery ranks with finding the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library, and in fact in some ways exceeds them in importance. It proved a treasure trove of documents, some fifty thousand of them, in fifteen different languages, including at least one language that has otherwise been lost to the sands of history. Some of the Daoist and Buddhist texts are priceless, deeply re-orienting a world of scholarship. The cache also included the oldest printed book in the world, an edition of the Buddhist Diamond Sutra.

And it included texts from that long gone Luminous Religion, what have come to be called the Jesus Sutras. Sutra means thread, and is used in the sense of our shared Indo-European English’s “suture,” a binding thread. In Buddhism a Sutra is a sacred text. And while Christian, the shifts from normative Christianity are such that many feel “Jesus Sutra” a more accurate characterization of these texts.

Now the best single source about the religion and its texts for us is Martin Palmer’sThe Jesus Sutras: Rediscovering the Lost Scrolls of Taoist Christianity. A scholarly study, although it is not without its critics, many of whom suggest he slants his translations in ways that are not warranted by the texts themselves, making the Buddhist and Daoist influences larger than is warranted. Me, I’m going for his version whole hog.

There are many significant features of this Luminous Religion. One that caught me quickly is the blending of Guanyin, who had already been transformed from an indigenous Chinese goddess into the Buddhist archetype of compassion, reshapes once again with Mary, becoming a heartful image that many of us who’ve experienced both Buddhism and Christianity, including me, have also found ourselves. I’m also taken with the integration of Christian and Buddhist liturgical practices, and most important of all I’m just astonished at the “new” Christian texts of the Luminous Religion, those Jesus Sutras using Buddhist and Daoist imagery and idioms, and with all that transforming Christianity into something for me now very exciting and compelling. Its worth noting how this also happened earlier in Chinese religious history when Indian Buddhism came to China and began translating its texts into Chinese using Daoist terminology, and birthing out of that, that whole new Buddhism that we call Zen.

The Luminous Religion was, as it were, innocent of Augustine’s terrible idea of original sin, instead embraced the loveliness of the world, and while celebrating the divine origins of their teacher, consistently emphasized his teachings as the truly important thing, describing a holy way of life. They embraced both reincarnation and karma. My friend the independent scholar Adrian Worsfold summarizes the Luminous Religion’s followers as “vegetarians, (who) promoted non-violence, charity, sexual equality, care for nature, and were (nearly uniquely in their world strongly) anti-slavery.” And, while it continues the Trinitarian formula for baptism, with the change of calling the spirit, “pure wind,” the Luminous Religion’s teachings otherwise appear to be pretty Unitarian, emphasizing “salvation by character.” Well Unitarian if Unitarianism emerged out of Christianity, and Buddhism, and Taoism streaming together as a new version of the ancient Watercourse Way.

So, on the one hand a Westerner can find a lot easily recognizable in the Jesus Sutras, although often with a twist. For instance the Ten Commandments, or here “covenants.”

The first covenant of God is that anything that exists and does evil will be punished, especially if they do not respect the elderly. The second covenant is to honor and care for elderly parents. Those who do this will be true followers of Heaven’s Way. The third covenant is to acknowledge we have been brought into existence through our parents. Nothing exists without parents. The fourth covenant is that anybody who understands the precepts should know to be kind and considerate to everything, and to do no evil to anything that lives. The fifth covenant is that any living being should not take the life of another living being, and should also teach others to do likewise. The sixth covenant is that nobody should commit adultery, or persuade anyone else to do so. The seventh covenant is not to steal. The eighth covenant is that nobody should covet a living man’s wife, or his lands, or his palace, or his servants. The ninth covenant is not to let your envy of somebody’s good wife, or son, or house or gold, lead you to bear false witness against them. The tenth covenant is only to offer to God that which is yours to give.
And on the other hand there are teachings that more obviously echo the ancient wisdoms of Buddhism and Daoism, like the Four Essential Laws of Christian Dharma.

The first is no wanting. If your heart is obsessed with something, it manifests in all kinds of distorted ways. Distorted thoughts are the root of negative behavior…
The second is no doing. Don’t put on a mask and pretend to be what you’re not…
The effort needed to hold a direction is abandoned, and there is simply action and reaction. So walk the Way of No Action. The third is no piousness. And what that means
is not wanting to have your good deeds broadcast to the nation. Do what’s right to bring people to the truth
but not for your own reputation’s sake. So anyone who teaches the Triumphant Law, practicing the Way of Light to bring life to the truth, will know peace and happiness in company. But don’t talk it away. This is the Way of No Virtue. The fourth is no absolute. Don’t try to control everything. Don’t take sides in arguments about right and wrong. Treat everyone equally, and live from day to day. It’s like a clear mirror that reflects everything anyway: Green or yellow or in any combination -
It shows everything, as well as the smallest of details. What does the mirror do? It reflects without judgment.

The Luminous Religion calls us to a middle path, a Buddhist, Daoist, Christian middle way. It calls us into a deep investigation of our own lives, and it calls us into a community of mutual accountability.

Martin Palmer tells us, “The Jesus Sutras offer salvation from what we have made of ourselves – salvation from karma or (if you rather) from the burden of ‘original sin’ – because beneath the layers of our inadequate actions lies an original nature that is good. These spiritual, theological, psychological, philosophical, and ethical insights are in the Jesus Sutras, often beautifully and simply portrayed in accessible images, stories, and concepts.”

So fascinating, so wonderful. And so sad they were lost.

However Palmer adds how, in fact, they only await our discovery, yours and mine. He invites us to embark out on our own Silk Road, our own journey of discovery.

Palmer concludes his book with an observation. “After a thousand years, the Jesus Sutras have returned to us to shed light on the past, speak to our present, and, possibly, help shape our future.”

Here I find myself thinking of that “what if,” and realize in fact the door isn’t closed, the door is wide open.

We find something wondrous being presented. For those who have the eyes to see it, ears to hear it.

We want something different? We want to change the world?

Well, we start with ourselves.

We need to let go of what we thought was so, what had to be so, and allow other possibilities to emerge.

And so an invitation:

Take a walk along the Silk Road for yourself.

And dig a little.

Read. Talk. And most of all, pay attention.

You never know what treasure might be revealed.

You might even find what if becomes what is.

And wouldn’t that be a miracle?

Amen.
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

If there are no other gods, then why have that commandment?

There was actually another thread that dealt with the issue when it came to pointing out the extensive ways that there were always others gods in existence at the time that the MOST HIGH God spoke/commanded as he did - as seen here. To say "you are the God of gods" (if none exist) would be like saying "Look at hoe great I am compared to my imaginary friends"..

For more info, you can go here to The Divine Council.com | Michael S. Heiser, PhD ...and how it connects with what happens around the world



Also, the following presentations are from him/very helpful as it concerns the ways that dialogue occurred in the early Church on the issue - and it was helpful in seeing the ways that they were centered on addressing the ways folks took who Christ was and made Him into someone that he wasn't when acting as if He was either alone - or that he would never make anyone else besides mankind in his plans to glorify the Lord:

• The Divine Council and Jewish Binitarianism
• "Michael Heisner: Two Powers in Heaven"

Concerning Dr. Heiser - he is Evangelical ....and one of the people within Evangelicalism that has actually been very honest on issues that others within the camp may have strayed away from when it comes to trying to combat other damaging teachings in the Body of Christ and being willing to cross those "theological borders" that many have not been willing to do because of being told they cannot go to explore what has happened in the world of others - and I'm thankful for his noting many things which the Early Church has been saying for some time. Been following his work for sometime now and blessed by it. Concerning his background, he is the academic advisor of LOGOS Bible Software - Brother Mike earned an M.A. in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania (major fields: Ancient Israel and Egyptology). ..spent twelve years teaching biblical studies, history, and biblical languages on the undergraduate level...with his main research interests in Israelite religion (especially Israel’s divine council), biblical theology, ancient Near Eastern religion, biblical languages, ancient Semitic languages, the history of the biblical texts, and ancient Jewish binitarian monotheism, as his dissertation was entitled, "The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature.” The dissertation sought to discern the ancient Israelite background to Judaism's "Two Powers in Heaven" godhead teaching. For more information, one can investigate his Does Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible Demonstrate an Evolution From Polytheism to Monotheism in Israelite Religion? ).....as what was offered was really part of a chapter in a series of 8 papers. All of which are very well-researched and with many intriguing thoughts. One can also investigate his article entitled “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism: Toward an Honest (and Orthodox) [URL='http://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/heiser_monotheism-polytheism-monolatry-or-henotheism.pdf']Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible“. I have to agree with him when it comes to dealing with what the texts says plainly, concerning other "gods" being in existence outside of the Lord/Creator who is above all....especially in light of what is described in Psalm 82 and what the Lord does in using the Psalm to refer to Himself/others in John 10 - and the ways that it has been perverted by other groups claiming Christ (i.e. Mormonism, Arianism, etc.) and making it out to be something else entirely when forgetting to glorify the MOST HIGH God/Christ above all else....and why Christ went out of the way to place all religions/their respective deities in check by what He did at the Cross (Colossians 2:15)[/URL]


Additionally, For further information:

• Divine Council Of The Elohim & The Gods of The Bible | Dr.Michael Heiser
• Dr. Michael Heiser - Beit Tefillah Gig Harbor - May 4, 2013

Dean Briggs (of Ekklesia Rising ), with the ministry of IHOP (International House of Prayer), actually spoke on the same thing when it comes to our role in glorifying Christ and glorifying the Lord by reminding others of why God was jealous for his people not running to the "gods" of other nations/others trying to distract from who the Most High was - as seen in
Legislating in the Divine Council

 

[ananda]

There was actually another thread that dealt with the issue when it came to pointing out the extensive ways that there were always others gods in existence at the time that the MOST HIGH God spoke/commanded as he did ...

Thanks, I agree with Dr. Heiser, there are other gods as evidenced in the Bible. I see the biblical god as a type of Brahma in Buddhism.

 

[gord44]

Post kinda out of place in convo....my bad.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'd say Panentheism .

.

I agree -
as others have noted that same thing with Buddhism - that even if others claim it is a theistic system, any semblance of theism (with respect to differing deities) is simply another manifestation of pantheism. Personally, although the concept of God being present in creation is not necessarily a negative, I'd go with Panentheism over Pantheism any day (more shared in #26, and Panentheism, the other God of the philosophers: from Plato to the Present.. - ). And as it concerns the issue from a purely etymological perspective:​

• Pantheism = All things are God / God is all things, or all things are part of God​
• Panentheism = God is in all things​

Panentheism makes sense with the idea that the entire universe is part of God, But God is greater that the universe. God is omnipresent and transcendent – that is, God contains the entire cosmos but the entire cosmos does not and cannot contain God. He is omnipresent because his uncreated energies permeate all Creation, generating and sustaining it. And He is transcendent because his uncreated essence is inaccessible to us – it is wholly beyond Creation. Kinda like my cells and molecules and blood and other things in my body are part of myself, but I am much greater than those…and I cannot be seen in them….yet I am omnipresent through them, as I created them at my conception and sustain them throughout my life. God transcends creation as I transcend my body. Intelligence is everywhere. ..and the Universe is so massive that it'd make sense to know there has to be SOMEONE outside of it.


Hubble Heritage Gallery of Images

These are but a few, click on the link above to see dozens of them.

If you've ever heard of Louie Giglio, he actually had a video he made on the subject of just how vast the universe is...and how as incredible it is, it by itself cannot exist apart from the Lord and nothing can exist outside of Him. One of the reasons why men are foolish not to fear Him, seeing just how big He truly is:

How Great is Our God: with Louie Giglio (full video)

If you remember the film "Men in Black", there was a famous scene that really brought things into perspective on the issue of things would look like in the eyes of a creator:

Final Clip of Men In Black




Of course, I don't think God looks like how the alien being looked like in 'Men in Black" . But on a serious level, I do think that there's something to be said on how the classical model of how we see the universe isn't enough...for the Lord sustains it and is OUTSIDE of it entirely. The entire view behind what's known as Panentheism

And as it concerns Panentheism, it lines up perfectly for me in regards to God's Work in the rest of the world when seeing the extensive ways the Lord has been involved in other religions - as mentioned before:

God truly does work in the complexities of other religions.

As another noted best (for a brief excerpt) in Can God improvise outside the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy? - Patheos:

Some Christians would say that in order for Christianity to be uniquely right, we have to believe that Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Ba’hai, and everything else besides Judaism and Christianity are the entirely false products of demons who have deliberately misled billions of people in order to consign them to an eternity in hell. On the opposite end of the spectrum would be those who say that God has reached out to each culture using a different story and Christianity is just one way of framing the mystery of God among many other equally valid possibilities. ...I think Christianity is the most beautiful story about God, but I don’t think other stories about the mystery of existence, theistic or otherwise, lack important wisdom and truth that I can learn from.....One of my most fundamental presumptions about God is that God is a pragmatist who meets people where they are. That’s what God did with the Israelites for thousands of years. In the age of tribal deities, God allowed Israel to treat him like a tribal deity. God accommodated their needs as a people every step of the way, even acquiescing to give them a king when the plan had originally been for God to be their only king (1 Samuel 8). Just about every king that Israel had was corrupt in some way or another, but God went along with it and used his prophets to put a check on the kings’ power. God revealed himself more fully to Israel over time, ultimately showing them through the prophets that he didn’t just exist for the sake of Israel but that he cares about all the people int he world. Certainly there were a lot of wicked things that Israel did that God didn’t go along with, but he was infinitely patient with them and willing to communicate with them in a way that was coherent to their cultural context. If God was such a pragmatist with Israel, it doesn’t make any sense to me that he would be entirely aloof to the ancient people of India or Malaysia or anywhere else. The apostle Paul makes the claim in Romans 1:19 that all humanity has always had knowledge of God. This doesn’t mean that every culture has grasped God equally. But the Hindu Upanishads and the Koran are not entirely without truth. In fact, they do teach many of the same basic virtues that are found in Christianity, though their theological systems are completely different. So the fact that there are many truths to be found in other religions says to me that they must have received some kind of revelation from the mysterious entity we call God.

I think that God is a pragmatist with individuals just like he is with cultures. I don’t think God folds his arms and shuts off people who have unorthodox beliefs, but he tries to put the people and circumstances in their lives that will help them overcome the stumbling blocks in the unique spiritual journey that they’re on. The problem with heresy is not that God punishes or rewards people in a mechanistic fashion for their incorrect beliefs. Heresy is bad because it creates obstacles to the fullness of our encounter with God; our diminished image of God is the “punishment” for our incorrect belief.........If I’ve got an inadequate understanding of Jesus’ cross or the nature of scripture or the moral frailty of humanity, it keeps me from going as deep as I could with God. .....at the same time, I don’t think God is passively waiting for us to believe the right things about him in order to grow close to him. I believe that God is constantly improvising and revealing insights that help us get closer to him from where we are, even if we’ve hit our theological golf ball way off the fairway into a sand-trap somewhere. And I’ve also seen people with unorthodox beliefs being used powerfully by God. One of the most spiritually attuned people I’ve ever known could not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ and didn’t go into ordained ministry as a result, but that did not keep this person from experiencing amazing intimacy with God and mentoring dozens of others.
​

I thought it was very relevant what he noted - as it concerns the Global Work of the Holy Spirit in all religions. Some of this goes back to what was noted elsewhere before on the work of the Holy Spirit, as seen here for reference:

​

One thing to consider - if believing that there are other deities in existence other than God or Jesus Christ - is the reality that even religions built around them still can have it where the Holy Spirit is present working in that religion and using it as a bridge to bring others to the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

• THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE WORLD: IN NON-CHRISTIANS, CREATION AND OTHER RELIGIONS

I'm reminded of Dr. Amos Young - who noted that the Lord works in all religions on some level. And where most Pentecostals see the devil's work, Yong sees the Spirit's. ..meaning that Christians should be open to learning from and being enriched by the Spirit's work in world religions - with this also meaning that dialogue must take place alongside evangelism so that all the religions—including Christianity—can learn from each other what the Spirit is doing.

On where he has specifically spoken on the subject more in-depth:

• The Holy Spirit and the World Religions: On the Christian Discernment of Spirit(s) "after" Buddhism

Again, the work of Dr. Amos Yong is perhaps the most scholarly within the Pentecostal world when it comes to noting the extensive range of how the Holy Spirit moves and operates...as seen in The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh and Who is the Holy Spirit: A Walk with the Apostles (more shared here). He has also been very instrumental in showing the ways that the Holy Spirit's work has been crucial - a work that neither the Father nor the Son were designated to do - when it comes to preparing the hearts of others around the world and already working within their cultures in bringing them to Christ....more shared here in Amos Yong’s Review of “Holy Spirit, Chi, and the Other” | Grace Ji-Sun Kim ...or "Beyond the Impasse" by Amos Yong - Society of Vineyard Scholars : Society of Vineyard Scholars and Beyond the Impasse by Amos Yong - A Book Review - JR Woodward. More can be seen here as well - or here in the following:

• Ponderings on a Faith Journey: Spirit of Love (Amos Yong) -- Review

• AmosYong Whither Theological Inclusivism? The
  Development and Critique of an Evangelical Theology of Religions

The Holy Spirit and the Middle Way: A Pentecostal Inquiry in a Pluralistic World - YouTube

The thoughts of Yong have been a blessing to see when it comes to the ways he has challenged the Church in reconsidering the role of the Holy Spirit (and being Orthodox myself, it is cool to realize where his thoughts do line up much on the subject.. - especially in regards to the Word and the Spirit being the "Two Hands" of the Father.....and seeing how extensive the concept is with seeing the Holy Spirit as Wisdom).

To see the work of the Holy SPIRIT as being present in the development of other religions on some level does show a level of stewardship when it comes to the Global work of the Lord in ensuring that religions promoting other gods/deities still allow for pointers to be developed that would bring people back to the Lord and acknowledge him at some point.

• Spiritual Adventures: Sophia, Holy Spirit, Wisdom of God

​

.... for some people already understanding combinations of systems. They understood systems such as theism - the fact that there WAS a Creator of some kind - but from there it was multi-developed. The system of Theism for others was a mixture of polytheism and monotheism - believing in many beings but knowing that one alone was worthy of worship (even as others had roles to play) - or a mixture of Panentheism and monotheism (i.e. God exists outside of the physical universe and the cosmos exist entirely within Him, including all beings deemed "gods", and he is keeping it all going just as our immune system exists within us) or seeing God from a Hindu perspective (such as saying he was all that existed before spreading himself out in order to give life to the world) or a Buddhist perspective or some other combination. (

 

[smaneck]

Going to a Unity Church during the time you claimed to be either involved in Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy would be disingenious if you did not back to clarify fully to both groups on those forums where information was NOT being presented truly as what was occurring.

How about giving Yoder the benefit of a doubt. Granted there is a lot of inconsistency in some of the things he saying, but I see it as genuinely reflecting his state of mind, i.e. a bit confused.

If bringing Christ at any point into the discussion as was done before, the focus needed to be clear that Christ alone was the goal - but if Buddhism and jumping into other world religions was always an option, then Christ was never really the one whom another was following since He never left that option for people saying they were for him.

Are you aware of Pannikar's work? Or Thomas Merton's forays into Buddhism?

Either they were devoted to Him/his teachings above all - or they were people who simply respected him rather than knew what he was about.

Or maybe had a different understanding than your own.

As it concerns Pure Land Buddhism, it was noted earlier the ways that Pure Land Buddhism was influenced by CHRISTIANITY earlier in one of the postings I gave - as well as recent - if going back to review what was shared in A Christian Critique of Pure Land Buddhism by John B .

I read that article but found no clear evidence that the Pure Land Sect was influenced by Christianity. Neither is there any evidence of that in your final link. All you have is an undocumented statement on the author's part which is full of errors. For instance he states that Nestorian Christianity had already made its mark on the Parthians by the second century A.D. That is quite a trick given the fact that Nestorius lived in the fifth century! So far as I know Christianity's influence on China did not happen until the seventh century and Pure Land Sect is started around 400 A.D.

 

[ananda]

One of the reasons why men are foolish not to fear Him, seeing just how big He truly is:

... I do think that there's something to be said on how the classical model of how we see the universe isn't enough...for the Lord sustains it and is OUTSIDE of it entirely. The entire view behind what's known as Panentheism

​

On the other hand, (at least early) Buddhism perceives the universe in this fashion:

The "self" can either 1. look below & outwards for an external god, or 2.look upwards & inwards, progressing through the rupa and arupa jhanas until he reaches nibbana.

Most religions asks one to look for a god outside of or separate from one's self. Early Buddhism perceives the opposite.

It is only when the "self" realizes that he is truly "selfless" and transcends the self can he reach nibbana. He is selfless because he realizes that his "self" merely consists of entwined elements that are part of a lesser whole. It is a journey towards the innermost universes.

 

[Yoder777]

Please keep in mind that, through all this time, going back to my high school years, my position has been that there is one divine being who manifests Itself to the various religions in the world in different ways for the sake of meeting people where they are at, similar to the Buddha's doctrine of expedient means. I never claimed that Jesus is the only way and I claimed that following Jesus was one of many paths to salvation.

I wasn't aware until 2011 that there is a form of Buddhism such as Jodo Shinshu that depends upon an Other-Power's grace instead of on one's own efforts for salvation, and that they believe having a relationship with the living Buddha is possible for believers in him. And it was only because of my family of origin that, in 2011, I stopped going to the temple. This is a video that explains my views on the matter, more or less:

 

[Gxg (G²)]

How about giving Yoder the benefit of a doubt. Granted there is a lot of inconsistency in some of the things he saying, but I see it as genuinely reflecting his state of mind, i.e. a bit confused.

Facts are facts - and this is not isolated. If one wants to defend, of course - and of course, no one is saying anything about not being genuine. You can play-act and be sincere at many points, but that does't take away from where it is off when it is noted and others say "What you portrayed on other forums is RADICALLY different than what you are in practice - thus meaning you don't need to keep that platform up in other forums as if you were in line with them or their core beliefs since you are made aware of it."

Are you aware of Pannikar's work? Or Thomas Merton's forays into Buddhism?

Forays into Buddhism are not the point, seeing what was explictly said by Christ on following Him alone rather than one among many. This was consistently noted in the Epistles, the Early Church and Christ himself since the first century, so trying to go for later works isn't going to work if going for actual accuracy on the Judaic context Christ spoke in and even non-Christian Jews noted on Monotheism/devotion in the Shema and the Lord never allowing devotion to other gods if actively knowing on who the Messiah or He was. There are plenty like Thomas Merton or Pannikar - doesn't make them consistent with what Christ actually taught and what His followers advocated in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

Or maybe had a different understanding than your own.

Differing understandings are irrelevant to dealing explictly with what Christ has already said of himself and what the early believers actually did when it came to noting what it meant to follow Him. "He who does not gather with me scatters" as Christ already noted in Matthew 10 among other places - and no one who does not look to the Son will not have life, as the Lord said in John 5 and John 7.

I read that article but found no clear evidence that the Pure Land Sect was influenced by Christianity.

Article was never the ONLY one given to begin with, so one needs to get context. It was said to deal with where Pure Land Buddhism was influenced by other schools of thought (with the other articles from earlier dealing with the issue of Christian influence on Pure Land Buddhism and showing where it was in/of itself an innovative system not fully tied to Buddhism as it was envisioned). Thus, if you want to start quoting the actual article piece for piece, so be it.

Neither is there any evidence of that in your final link. All you have is an undocumented statement on the author's part which is full of errors.

Seriously, one can do better than claim an article is full of errors and instead actually deal with the argument if they are going to claim anything undocumented since it was referenced repeatedly.

For instance he states that Nestorian Christianity had already made its mark on the Parthians by the second century A.D. That is quite a trick given the fact that Nestorius lived in the fifth century! So far as I know Christianity's influence on China did not happen until the seventh century and Pure Land Sect is started around 400 A.D.

The article referenced that was called A Christian Critique of Pure Land Buddhism by John B did NOT show any sign of speaking on Nestorianism...so unless you can verify what you stated, you are doing a falsehood with the information.

As it is, your claim goes to the issue of actually knowing history since Nestorian thought didn't originate solely with Nestorian - and was present before the 5th century anyhow. ..as it concerns The Church of the East headed by the Patriarch of the East, continuing a line that, according to tradition, stretched back to the Apostolic Age. It is called "Nestorian" not because Nestorius lived in the 5th century, but because the church which spread throughout most of Asia in the 2nd century bears the appellation "Nestorian," after the 5th-century patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, who was condemned by Rome as a heretic in AD 430. For the Church of the East had its inception at a very early date in the buffer zone between the Parthian and Roman Empires in Upper Mesopotamia, known as the Assyrian Church of the East - and at schools such as Edessa and elsewhere, the formations of Nestorian thought were already forged. Some of this has been discussed before elsewhere (both here and here and here). Christianity never began in the 7th century alone and was consistently earlier as well.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thanks, I agree with Dr. Heiser, there are other gods as evidenced in the Bible. I see the biblical god as a type of Brahma in Buddhism.

Some of it is interesting when it comes to the concepts of other gods made as a type of Council and God supreme over them all - while allowing others to have stewardship over certain parts. Comic Books, for me, have always surprised me, in the way that they have often tried to bring out aspects of Buddhist thought with the issue and connect things - some of this mentioned before when seeing certain concepts of other beings given stewardship (more shared here and here).

​

 

[smaneck]

None of what you said actually dealt with what the history has said on Nestorian Christians preceding Pure Land Buddhism - and is thus an argument of assertion.

And nothing you've presented establishes that Nestorian Christians did proceed Pure Land Buddhism in China. What you gave us is an assertion from someone writing about Japan insisting there was some second century Christian monk which he fails to either name or provide any evidence whatsoever of his existence. All the other information you cite talks about Nestorians from sometime in the eighth century, nearly four centuries after the founding of the Pure Land Sect.

If you cannot deal even with what non-Christian scholars and Buddhists have said on the issue, then you are not actually dealing with Buddhism.

I'm looking at your sources and they simply aren't matching your assertions. Mind you, I didn't look at your videos. They can't be analyzed the same way as texts, so I tend to ignore them.

One, again, fails to actually deal with Nestorian Christianity that precedeeed development of Pure Land Buddhism and other Buddhists have been honest enough in noting that simple reality.

Again, you've yet to establish this is in fact the case. All your information regarding Nestorians in China aren't any earlier than the Tang Dynasty. Again, please provide direct evidence not simply some scholar on Japan who can't even properly footnote his sources.

There was a shift in Buddhist belief AT one point where a concept akin to grace emerged, due to the influence of Nestorian missionaries along the Silk Road

Nestorians are active on the silk road between the seventh and ninth centuries. Buddhism, on the other hand, spreads in its Mahayana form in the first and second centuries. By 400 A.D. we have clear evidence of the Pure Land Sect. If anything influence likely went the other direction. After all, we know Mani in Mesopotamia was influenced by Buddhism.

,

emerged Christianity entered Japan at the same time as Buddhism.

You're basing this on an assertion that there is this unnamed monk from the second century and the author of the book which asserted this did so without providing any evidence whatsoever! He may be right that Christianity and Buddhism reach Japan around the same time, but the Pure Land Sect has already centuries old in China by this time.

Early Nestorian missionary bishops taught a doctrine of salvation by grace in such a way that it altered the teaching of even Buddhist rivals

You've still not provided any evidence whatsoever there is any connection between the two.

For the sake of the lurker, as other scholars have noted, one can investigate The Encounter of Nestorian Christianity with Tantric Buddhism (in By Huaiyu Chen in Tang Dynasty and Church of the East theology).

Again, that is way too late to prove influence. The Tang Dynasy is seventh through nine century. The Pure Land sect is founded around 400 A.D.

Moreover, there's the resource known as Teaching the Silk Road: A Guide for College Teachers
edited by Jacqueline M. Moore, Rebecca Woodward Wendelken and

I've used this resource and nowhere does it indicate that Nestorian Christianity reaches China before the development of Pure Land Buddhism, nor does it indicate that Nestorian Christianity provided them with the Christian concept of salvation through grade.

Interpreting Amida: History and Orientalism in the Study of Pure Land Buddhism
By Galen Amstutz

This book is not about sources of Pure Land Buddhism, it is about how Western scholars have studied it. Besides, its focus is on Japan. To prove Christian influence on the development of the Pure Land Sect you need to be looking at China not Japan. In fact, I would ignore any study that uses the name Amida rather than Amitabha, because be definition it is focusing on a much later period.

One can also deal with The Travels of William of Rubruck to the Mongol Court (13th c.), in which Friar William gives large descriptions of the Nestorians at the Mongol court and their interaction with other religions.

And what would this have to do with developments in Buddhism which occurred eight centuries previously?

So again, one needs to actually deal with Pure Land teachings rather than simply try to rehash an article that was never comprehensive to begin with.

And before you make assertions regarding the impact of Nestorian Christianity on the Pure Land Sect you need to make sure the chronology matches. And even that doesn't by itself establish a causal relationship. What is certain is that events that follow an event can't cause it. It doesn't matter how many sources you cite if they don't confirm your assertions.

 

[smaneck]

no one is saying anything about not being genuine. You can play-act and be sincere at many points

You are accusing Yoder inconsistency? What you said in one sentence you contradict in the very next one! Take the log out of your own eye!

Forays into Buddhism are not the point, seeing what was explictly said by Christ on following Him alone rather than one among many. This was consistently noted in the Epistles, the Early Church and Christ himself since the first century, so trying to go for later works isn't going to work if going for actual accuracy on the Judaic context Christ spoke in and even non-Christian Jews noted on Monotheism/devotion in the Shema and the Lord never allowing devotion to other gods if actively knowing on who the Messiah or He was. There are plenty like Thomas Merton or Pannikar - doesn't make them consistent with what Christ actually taught and what His followers advocated in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

The religions we are talking about here were unknown to Christians in the 1st and 2nd centuries. What opinion they would have had about them is a matter of speculation. Merton, of course, was interested in Buddhism because of its emphasis on the contemplative life. However, Pannikkar was Catholic theologian who considers himself both a Hindu and a Catholic, having been raised in both traditions. Steve Bakr used to cite him a great deal and I knew him personally. Pannikar held that Christ can be found in both Hinduism and Buddhism. That gets him kicked out of the Opus Dei, but that is no big loss.

"He who does not gather with me scatters" as Christ already noted in Matthew 10 among other places - and no one who does not look to the Son will not have life, as the Lord said in John 5 and John 7.

I see you feel pretty threatened by this.

Article was never the ONLY one given to begin with, so one needs to get context. It was said to deal with where Pure Land Buddhism was influenced by other schools of thought (with the other articles from earlier dealing with the issue of Christian influence on Pure Land Buddhism and showing where it was in/of itself an innovative system not fully tied to Buddhism as it was envisioned).

None of them provided a credible chronology for Christian influence which proceeded the development of the Pure Land Sect. Indeed, if you actually read the works you'll see the evidence indicates the opposite.

Seriously, one can do better than claim an article is full of errors and instead actually deal with the argument if they are going to claim anything undocumented since it was referenced repeatedly.

There was no reference to the assertion about a second century Christian in East Asia and the whole crux of your argument rests upon being able to establish that this was indeed the case.

This once again goes to the issue of actually knowing history since Nestorian thought didn't originate solely with Nestorian - and was present before the 5th century anyhow. ..as it concerns The Church of the East headed by the Patriarch of the East, continuing a line that, according to tradition, stretched back to the Apostolic Age.

Okay, fine. There is still no evidence of any type Christianity being found in East Asia or even along the Silk Road prior to the sixth century. We find it in India a bit earlier but that came via the Indian Ocean route.

For the Church of the East had its inception at a very early date in the buffer zone between the Parthian and Roman Empires in Upper Mesopotamia, known as the Assyrian Church of the East - and at schools such as Edessa and elsewhere, the formations of Nestorian thought were already forged.

Fine, it still wasn't in China or Japan in the second century as your source asserted without proof.

Christianity never began in the 7th century alone and was consistently earlier as well.

No one said it did, but you can't find it in China much earlier than that.

 

[Yoder777]

Pure Land Buddhism is thoroughly rooted in the Bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana Buddhism that the purpose of attaining Buddhahood is to then help all other beings attain Buddhahood.

Pure Land Buddhists trust in the vow of Amitabha to help all people who sincerely come to him, just as every Mahayana Buddhist makes a vow to seek Buddhahood for the sake of helping all other beings attain Buddhahood.

If one is unfamiliar with the importance of the Bodhisattva vow to Mahayana Buddhism, then one sadly doesn't really know much of anything related to Mahayana Buddhism.

Can we please stop with the arguing and the religious triumphalism? I think it's better if we calmly ask each other honest questions about what we believe and why we believe it.