Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's a very good question, and it goes back to the Buddha's doctrine of expedient means. Could you please tell me if you are familiar with it?
The Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and the Mahayana is an important Buddhist Ecumenical statement created in 1967 during the First Congress of the World Buddhist Sangha Council (WBSC), where its founder Secretary-General, the late Venerable Pandita Pimbure Sorata Thera, requested the Ven. Dr. Walpola Rahula to present a concise formula for the unification of all the different buddhist traditions. This text was then unanimously approved by the Council.
The points were well written by Ven. Dr. Walpola Rahula and summarize Buddhism and provide foundational teachings which are common to all forms of Buddhism.
The Buddha is our only Master (teacher and guide)
We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha (the Three Jewels)
We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God
We consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom (panna) leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth
We accept The Four Noble Truths, namely dukkha, the arising of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha, and the path leading to the cessation of duḥkha; and the law of cause and effect
All conditioned things (saṃskāra) are impermanent (anicca) and dukkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things are without self (anatta)
We accept the 37 factors of enlightenment as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment.
There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment: namely as a disciple (śrāvaka), as a pratyekabuddha and as a sammasambuddha (perfectly and fully enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisatta and to become a sammasambuddha in order to save others.
We admit that in different countries there are differences regarding Buddhist beliefs and practices. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=9_points_unifying_Theravada_and_Mahayana
Please forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe it's because of the Buddha's doctrine of expedient means that there are different schools of Buddhism, including Theravada. It's the compassion of the Buddha that recognizes the vast differences of personality types and levels of understanding:
http://buddhism.about.com/od/mahayanabuddhism/fl/Upaya.htm
You could be right, of course, but how would you distinguish between upaya and other factors? Must all differences be explainable in terms of expedient means, or may some differences happen due to other reasons, and how do we tell the difference?
The reason I ask is that there are clearly religious groups out there that are harmful, not expediently helpful, to their practitioners, such as what we might think of as "cults".
eudaimonia,
Mark
Trikaya, meaning three bodies, is not three separate bodies but three aspects of the one body of Buddhahood. Buddha as Dharmakaya (Body of Truth) resides in everything. The Dharmakaya is impersonal law, principle, ultimate reality – the Truth of the Universe. It is indescribable and inexpressible. The Buddha as Sambhogakaya (Accomodated Body) is personal and appears before our religious awareness as Amida Buddha of Wisdom and Compassion. Buddha as Nirmanakaya (Manifested Body) refers to the historical Buddha who appeared on earth as Sakyamuni 2500 years ago.
In Jodo Shinshu, the object of worship is Amida Buddha. Amida is depicted artistically as an active Buddha in a standing position, hands held up in a gesture of bestowing blessings on all beings and leaning slightly forward – symbolizing the eternal activity of Wisdom and Compassion.
The Primal Vow of Amida Buddha promises Universal Enlightenment for all beings. In all the religions of the world there is no vow that has such a sweeping power, promising hope and life’s fulfillment to human beings as well as all living things. The all compassionate activity of Amida Buddha will never cease so long as beings are lost, forlorn, suffering or wandering in a meaningless existence.
http://seattlebetsuin.org/index.php/jodo-shinshu/#_
Thanks for responding - seeing what you were saying, it does make your previous comments on Catholicism and Orthodoxy (when saying you were a part of those groups/advocating for them) a bit suspect - if saying you were attending Unity Church ....there really was not an exposure to Jesus taught and proclaimed in the Gospels. One does not say they are committed to Christ - but then chooses to go into Buddhism quickly in order to relieve stress rather than seeing what Christ taught in dealing with stress through denying oneself/turning to Him in what he is about. I do think you should really consider just how much you actually understood Christianity from a Biblical and Historical perspective....That's a very good question. I started reading Marcus Borg and other liberal Christian authors in 2009, which showed me that the traditional Christian faith in which I was raised is not what the historical Jesus originally intended. I then started attending services at Unity Church, which is a liberal church based on the words of Jesus in the Gospels along with Hindu and Buddhist influences.
Now that I am in a new city, the Unity congregation is not very good, is very small, and the pastor is not a good teacher like the one in my old city. Since I already had this basic understanding of Buddhism, and since I needed a healthy way to relieve stress in my wife, I then turned to studying and practicing Buddhism. Pure Land Buddhism, of all Buddhist paths, appeals to me the most, since it is based on devotion to the Buddha and trusting in his grace, instead of relying solely on your own efforts.
... icons in mosaic form are always noteworthy to me
Concerning the issue, I came across this one of late and I thought it was truly fascinating.
For a brief description:
Mahamrityunjaya Mantra
ॐ त्रिएक परमेश्वर यजामहे सुगन्धिंम् पुष्टिवर्धनम् ।
उर्वारुकमिव बन्धनान् मृत्योर्मुक्षीय मामृतात्
Prayer to the One who is Victorious over Death I worship the Three-in-One God who is fragrant and who nourishes and nurtures all beings. As a cucumber is freed from its bondage by the gardener, may He liberate me from bondage to death unto eternal life
Jesus sits upon a lotus flower, giving two mudras: His right hand showing the mudra of Abhaya, symbolizing protection, peace, benevolence, and dispelling of fear, while his left hand displays the Varada mudra, symbolizing ‘open-handed’ generosity such as charity or the granting of wishes. Wikipedia writes that "it is nearly always shown made with the left hand by a revered figure devoted to human salvation from greed, anger and delusion." Behind his head is a cross halo. Fiery bands emanate from him, like an aureola. Overall, I think it's a dynamic design, and I like the gold tones throughout, which reminds me of ancient Byzantine mosaics. One thing that I question, however, is the use of the Tilak or Bindi symbol on Jesus' forehead.
Frank Wesley rarely used this symbol in his paintings of Jesus, though he did in at least one (rather, he typically opted for painting Jesus' forehead in a golden hue to represent knowledge of God). Naomi Wray writes that "here it may represent a vertical third eye, the never-closing eye of the all-seeing God." She concludes that "This was not an image readily accepted by the Christian community" (Frank Wesley: Exploring Faith With a Brush, 34).
Interestingly, the Yeshu Satsang Toronto, a monthly Hindu-style worship service lead by Chris Hale (of Christian music group Aradhna) and his wife Miranda Stone, provides sandlewood paste for followers of Jesus "to apply to their foreheads in the form of a dot (tilak). This symbolizes that the person is a spiritual seeker, serious about the pursuit of God."
.............
It is because of the fact that differing cultures have their own forms that we must be sensitive whenever it comes to others seeking to promote the Gospel and yet doing so in ways that actually match their culture and reflect it wonderfully whenever it comes to seeing the example of how the Church did things.
For example, if seeing life within the Malankara Orthodox Church, There are Asharams, in the Christian Monastic tradition that have done stellar with regards to their use of icons to glorify the Lord while also keeping their culture in tact - with people who valued that and coming to mind being others like E.Stanley Jones - and it is so timely what they do. Here are some, for example, from others who are are Yeshu Bhakta (more on them here and here, here and here):
There are differing ways in which Buddhism has many things that can be learned as it concerns learning to walk sustainably with the world around you - although what I've seen consistently to be true is that this can be found and IS found within the Gospel of Christ Jesus and the Kingdom of God.I needed a healthy way to relieve stress in my wife, I then turned to studying and practicing Buddhism. Pure Land Buddhism, of all Buddhist paths, appeals to me the most, since it is based on devotion to the Buddha and trusting in his grace, instead of relying solely on your own efforts.
It truly is fascinating that some of the people who seem the least concerned for all of the fears arising on the planet and its mistreatment (Even though they have said it is a problem) would be the Buddhist Monks in the monasteries throughout Asia.
I really appreciate the Buddhist Monks and their mindsets - with them being very similar to the Desert Fathers in how introspective they are and disciplined, as well as aware of there being more to this life than this physical reality - something which has led to a lot of dialogues between Buddhists and Christians on differing levels.
[/CENTER][/CENTER]
But with the Buddhists monks, it intrigues me to see how they seem to have accepted a finality on the entire issue with feeling that there are greater concerns that are to be held to - and Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh noted that "only love can save us from climate change." In his view, most people are not responding to the threat of global warming, despite overwhelming scientific evidence, because they are unable to save themselves from their own personal suffering - thus making themselves too burdened to worry about the battles impacting the Earth/Nature. Although he has outlined practical ways to address global warming before in his books (such as The World We Have: A Buddhist Approach to Peace and Ecology: Easyread Large and The Blooming of a Lotus: Revised Edition of the Classic Guided Meditation ), he has still been of the mindset that nothing is permanent and there needs to be a willingness to not hold so tightly to things. It amazes me that the man is one at great peace even as he predicts the possible collapse of civilisation within 100 years as a result of runaway climate change. - more in ECOBUDDHISM :: Only love can save us from climate change and ECOBUDDHISM :: BOOK - Contents, Overview, Excerpts
Through meditation and education and acts of love one person at a time, change is a gradual process. We see that today, in countries such as Thailand and Japan, many Buddhist monks are active in Green groups.. And we can see in places like Bhutan where there is immense security due to how others handle themselves - more noted in Water and Climate in the Himalayas and Buddhism and climate change | Sujato’s Blog
There have been cases of others standing in the way of aggressive destruction of the environment (like these Buddhist monks in Cambodia blessing trees which are about to be destroyed to make way for a banana plantation - with the orange cloth making them sacred and used in the hopes of deterring loggers from cutting them down.
But if things do not change, there's no sense in fear being promoted within that system.
I am reminded of where Pulitzer Prize-winning poet Gary Snyder wrote an essay called “Buddhism and the Coming Revolution"....detailing at one point the practice of Buddhist Anarchism (more in Buddhist Anarchism (Gary Snyder) and BUDDHISM AND THE COMING REVOLUTION by Gary Snyder | Arthur Magazine). Buddhist Anarchism is very similar in many ways with Anarcho Primitivism . And interestingly enough, Buddhist Anarchism praises Chaos as a harbinger of change...yet unlike more mainstream anarchists - they don't seem to bother creating their own institutions since Chaos will itself bring change. To others, from Chaos a better world would naturally emerge
For reference, one can go here or here in Paul Cudenec: The skilful means of anarcho-Buddhism and to Zen Anarchy (Max Cafard) | The Anarchist Library.
And for others:
That may be true, but it's sure hard to find in the church. The mystics find it. But those folks are mostly out on the fringes.... - although what I've seen consistently to be true is that this can be found and IS found within the Gospel of Christ Jesus and the Kingdom of God.
What I've found is that people saying it's hard to "find in the church" have rarely explored ALL of it - or seen what it is like in total at all points throughout its history since it was never just the mystics out in the middle of nowhere. There were numerous movements of people, both within the Church (4 walls) and outside of it on the mission field, that have lived it out and countless Saints who've spoken on it - from the Civil Rights era to the time of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, the Renaissance, the Middle Ages, etc. It always depends on where you're looking and what you've actually experienced...That may be true, but it's sure hard to find in the church. The mystics find it. But those folks are mostly out on the fringes.
.
I am aware of the background on things you've shared before, although I must say that your story has shifted a couple of times in ways that really do not seem consistent - especially after speaking on trying to defend the RC background when saying one was either investigating Orthodoxy or understood what it was growing up in it, as noted in 2013 in the following from you:Just for the interest of full disclosure, I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church since that's the faith of my mother's side of the family, but my father's side is Greek Orthodox. I was baptized into the Greek Orthodox Church as an infant, and started practicing Eastern Orthodoxy in my junior year of high school in 2003. From 2004 to 2008, I served as an altar server in the Orthodox Church.
There are so many good things I can say about Eastern Orthodoxy, and I don't really want to get too much into detail about my disagreements with it, but let's just say that I stopped being involved in Eastern Orthodoxy in 2009 after having some seriously negative experiences with certain priests that I was close to at the time, and I off and on tried going back to Orthodoxy, just to test the waters to see if it was right for me, in the years since then.
Jodo Shinshu Buddhism has everything I liked about Eastern Orthodoxy, such as chanting, incense, prayer beads, the liturgy, ancient texts, spiritual devotion to a loving being, etc., but without the negative things that I experienced in Eastern Orthodoxy, such as rigid dogmatism, overbearing priests, etc. Being a school of Buddhism, Jodo Shinshu also has the added benefit of teaching how to find inner peace in this world, in this life.
Please keep in mind that, in leaving Eastern Orthodoxy, I made sure not to burn bridges or I at least tried. I never want to bad mouth Eastern Orthodox Christians or their faith.
Though I attend mass maybe twice a month, I am more culturally Catholic than anything else. I was raised in the Catholic Church so that's where I feel at home, even if I disagree with the Vatican on certain issues or sometimes think that the man standing at the pulpit is a bozo. I recently had my daughter baptized in the Catholic Church, even though my wife isn't interested in having her raised in the faith.
I am attracted to the mystical side of Catholicism, but that's mostly because of my attraction to mysticism in general. The Catholic Church obviously has a richer mystical tradition than mainstream Protestantism and I appreciate that. I attend mass because I beleve in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist but I don't get involved in a parish for anything else.
Honestly, I get more out of an AA meeting for my spiritual life than I ever have from a church. At AA, people are actually real and aren't afraid to show you their real problems. At church, people often pretend to be something they are not, which actually is hurtful to having a real spiritual life.Roman Catholicism is the faith in which I was raised. I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in my teenage years, with a reason being my resentment about the priest scandal. A few months ago, I started attending Catholic mass again, and even had my daughter baptized in the Catholic church, which may have just been a bridge for me returning to Orthodoxy after a four year absence. I can say for sure that I've gotten over my previous resentment against Catholicism. Like I said, I may not have come to liturgy this Sunday if I hadn't been invited to do so, but I am happy that I was.After giving it much thought and consideration, I am going to hold off on making a full re-commitment to Eastern Orthodoxy. I feel no more loyalty to Orthodoxy than I do to the Catholic faith in which I was raised, even though I have a deep appreciation for Orthodox tradition. At the same time, I still intend on attending fellowship activities like the men's breakfast at the local Orthodox church, and I am happy that they still welcome me as a friend. I am sorry if I have offended anyone. I do know for a fact that I am most attracted to churches that are liturgical and sacramental, like Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Between the two, I think Catholicism has more tolerance for differences of opinion.
Please keep in mind that in all my questions about various topics related to Orthodox Christianity, I have had no desire to offend whatsoever. If you wanted me to list the things that I like about Roman Catholicism, I could do so, but I could make a list about equally as long about Orthodoxy.
I think the reforms made since Vatican II, in opening the faith to the modern world while preserving the essentials of ancient faith, have been generally good. While some have criticized the novus ordo mass, I think there are some really good contemporary Catholic liturgical songs. I also think that having a modernized liturgy is perhaps a more effective way of reaching the modern world, especially the unchurched. I see no reason why the Orthodox liturgy can't preserve its essential form while also adapting to the musical tradition of whatever culture in which it is practiced, including American culture. For example, why not have a Gospel music version of the divine liturgy? If not, why not?
There are so many Catholic saints and thinkers that, even as a devoutly Orthodox Christian, I admired, especially Francis of Assisi, Teilhard de Chardin, John Paul II, John XXIII and Padre Pio. I am also deeply moved by Catholic forms of meditation and prayer such as the rosary, the chaplet of divine mercy, and the Ignatian exercises. I also find Catholic religious art to better convey emotion and realism than Orthodox iconography.
The main problem I've had with the Catholic Church is that I don't believe in the authority of the papacy, but there are many Catholics today who disagree with the Vatican on important matters. Hans Kung, a Catholic priest who participated in Vatican II, says clearly that papal supremacy as exercised by the Vatican was not of the ancient faith of the apostles.
Basically, what happened to me is that my mother's side of the family is Catholic while my father's side is Orthodox. I was raised Catholic, but I converted to Orthodoxy in high school. I was one of those people who converted to Orthodoxy out of resentment against his former faith, as this was the height of the priest scandal. In my college years, I was a full blown Orthodox zealot, demanding that others recognize the exclusive truth of the Orthodox faith while failing to live up to the teachings of the fathers in my personal life. When I finished college, I drifted away from Orthodoxy due to some bad experiences I had with priests who were mentally unstable and who were overly zealous about their Orthodoxy to compensate for their own insecurities. I then attended church services at the Salvation Army for over a year, because I was impressed by their charitable work, but I made clear to the pastor from the beginning that I was making no commitment to the Salvation Army and that I recently had some bad experiences with clergymen, which he fully understood. I eventually left the Salvation Army because I honestly missed the Eucharist, which they do not practice. I then found this book at the library, which is a book about Catholic traditions from a Protestant perspective, and it helped to attract me to the Catholic faith in which I was raised:
http://www.amazon.com/Almost-Cathol...id=1365992778&sr=1-1&keywords=almost+catholic
I've been attending Catholic mass off and on for the past six months. I recently had my two year old daughter baptized in the Catholic Church. About a month or two ago, however, the deacon from the Orthodox church to which I once belonged and even altar served called me up and invited me to a spiritual breakfast. This gave me the incentive to give Eastern Orthodoxy a second chance, but I might honestly feel more comfortable in the Catholic faith, even though I have a profound appreciation for Orthodoxy.
THE HISTORICAL FIGURES
This is a bit tricky to discuss, because the only historical documents we have about Jesus are the Gospels, and those were not written down until several decades after Jesus walked the Earth, according to many scholars. Most of Jesus' direct followers were illiterate...and Jesus' public ministry lasted only 3 years.
Therefore the accounts are questionable, because they could have changed a lot over time by word of mouth.
The Buddha, on the other hand, was surrounded by a cadre of scholarly monks, and had a public ministry for 45 years. Large chunks of His teachings were committed to memory and passed down as such - and were finally written down in pristine form as the Sutras. Therefore the accounts are possibly a lot more reliable than those in the Gospels.
With that said, the Jesus of the Gospels was definitely a HOT figure - while the Buddha of the Sutras was a COOL one. The best example I can give is the one of Jesus fashioning a whip of cords and chasing the moneychangers from the Temple. Another would be the time that Jesus wept, as he contemplated the tomb of Lazarus.
It is impossible to conceive of the Buddha doing such a thing - because as the Buddha, He had extinguished ALL His passions and lived in the coolness of NIRVANA.
So - a fair and honest reading of the texts themselves gives me (at least) a sense of two men who were very different in their levels of realization. One (Shakyamuni) was a full Buddha - with the characteristic of both ultimate compassion AND ultimate dispassion. The other (Christ) was a great spiritual teacher - with great compassion, but also still great passion, capable of being stirred to righteous anger and human grief. A true Buddha is beyond both of those strong and potentially disorienting emotional states.
http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/Faith.html
1. THE GODHEAD
At the very heart of Christianity is the figure of the Triune God - the God of the Old and New Testaments. Shakyamuni Buddha, on the other hand, steadfastly refused to answer questions about God. He said that for us, such questions simply didn't address the issue that was always uppermost in His mind: suffering and the end of suffering. He also said that to discuss the concept of God would inevitably lead to quarreling.
2. FIRST CAUSES
Anyone with a smattering of Christian education knows that the God of the Bible is considered the "first cause" of existence. And, from the Christian perspective, the "first cause" of mankind's current darkness can be located in the primal disobedience of Adam and Eve as told in the Book of Genesis. Buddha Dharma, however, deliberately avoids a discussion of first causes.
3. THE QUESTION OF ETERNAL DAMNATION
The Bible is clear that for those who reject Christ's call, eternal damnation awaits. Whether we're talking about burning forever in a lake of fire, or simply ending up in a state of existential alienation from light and life - the picture is one of being shut out FOREVER.
Buddhism also has its vision of hell-realms - but Buddhism also asserts that all sentient beings have Buddha-Nature (Skt. tathagatagharba), and all sentient beings eventually have a full experience of that nature as Buddhas - no matter how many ages it might take for that experience to manifest.
Speaking personally, for me one of the great sustaining joyful concepts in the Dharma is the idea that eventually ALL become Buddhas. It provides (for me) a great medicine against what would otherwise be a sense of despair about the seeming intractability of darkness in the human condition.
4. THE QUESTION OF REBIRTH
Early on in Church history, there were those who believed in the idea of rebirth. But as Church doctrine codified, this idea was discarded as incorrect. In Buddhism, rebirth is a basic fact of the Dharma.
I'm not going to get into one of those endless discussions about rebirth vs. reincarnation that Buddhists have been having for 2500 years. But clearly there is something that is intrinsic to each of us that survives this current life we are living. Simply reading Shakyamuni Buddha's description in the Larger Sutra of Amida Buddha about the many lives of the Bodhisattva Dharmakara, who finally becomes Amida Buddha, makes that clear enough.
Speaking personally, once again - this Dharma is the most powerful and wonderful medicine for me. Indeed, one of the things that precipitated my leaving the Christian faith was the fact that most of my blood family were European Jews who perished in the Holocaust. Because of 2000 years of vile anti-Semitic behavior by Christians (of which the Holocaust was the apotheosis) there was no way these poor people would have ever responded to the Gospel message.
I just couldn't wrap my mind around the idea that an all knowing Creator God would load the dice so that the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust would inevitably end up in any sort of hell, with no way out - ever.
So the Dharma - with its LONG view of existence through many lifetimes - and its promise of universal salvation made perfect at last through the Primal Vow of Amida Buddha - has given me much comfort and hope right here.
5. THE IDEA OF EVIL
When I came to Master Shinran's writings for the first time - especially when comparing Shinran to a lot of modernist writers from all schools of Buddhism - the presence of the word EVIL was disconcerting. Here is one place where Master Shinran and St. Paul sound like they're reading from the same hymn book, so to speak.
But in fact they're NOT.
Master Shinran's idea of evil is firmly grounded in the Buddha's teachings, just as St. Paul's is firmly grounded in the Bible account of Genesis.
For Shinran, the root of evil is our IGNORANCE. It is essentially an ONTOLOGICAL issue - an issue of BEING. We tend to do evil because we are being blinded to our Buddha-Nature by our countless delusions and obscurations.
For Paul, the root of our evil is DISOBEDIENCE to God's will. It is essentially a MORAL issue. We tend to do evil because the whole race is infected with the moral disobedience of the primal human parents, Adam and Eve.
6. THE MECHANISM OF SALVATION
In Christianity, the mechanism of salvation is the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, as explained most clearly by the Apostle Paul. The innocent Lamb of God decides to bear the burden of the punishment due me, a sinner who has violated God's moral law. My guilt is imputed to him, and his righteousness is imputed to me.
In fact, in Christianity, the mechanism of atonement, sacrifice and scapegoat occurs repeatedly as a theme foreshadowed in the Old Testament. It is part and parcel of the reality of the broken relationship between a totally just God and a totally defiled humanity.
In Shin Buddhism, on the other hand, the mechanism of salvation is in the declaration of the 48 Vows by Bodhisattva Dharmakara resulting in his ultimate transformation to Amida Buddha and the creation of His Pure Land (Skt. sukhavati).
What both mechanisms have in common is the imputation of righteousness and the removal of moral or karmic debt.
http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/Faith.html
Seeing that you're not seeking to promote Shinran as the one to follow and Amida Buddha as the one to trust in, I'd sincerely suggest studying what Shinran actually taught since it is a big over-simplification to claim he taught salvation by faith. The nuance was very explicit when it came to salvation found in Amida Buddha by lifestyle and the salvation found in the compassion of Christ by trust in Him/his salvation of trusting in God.Shinran Shonin is famous for explaining the contradiction in relying solely on your own efforts, as Theravada Buddhists do, in a religion which claims to be about overcoming or abandoning your ego-self. Shin Buddhism is the largest sect of Buddhism in Japan. Shinran taught salvation by grace through faith, three hundred years before Martin Luther, by trusting in the immeasurable compassion of Amida Buddha...
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. It also tends to color any discussion on actually having real interest in studying what a group actually supports when several things are supported which the group would have checked immediately if seeing the Unity Church you attended which is far removed from either camp. There are multiple "average" Orthodox and Catholics - both here and in person - who have never come close to advocating what you have and the understanding you gave on the issues here/elsewhere really isn't knowing more about either Orthodoxy or Catholicism since some of those things are basic that it seems you're supposing others don't know.I have to be honest that having my first child baptized in the Catholic faith was almost entirely to shut my mom up. Now that we live in a different city, I don't have to care what my family of origin thinks of our religion anymore.
The only reason why I stopped being involved in Unity is because the Unity congregation in our new city isn't very good, it's very small, dying, and there really isn't much substantive going on or being taught there. If the Unity Church in our new city was like our old Unity, we'd still be going to Unity right now.
My wife and I started going to Unity in 2013 because it was a church we could both agree upon to raise our kids in. It was also the same church that, in 2011, hosted an exhibit of Buddhist relics in which I was blessed using a relic of the Buddha by a Tibetan Buddhist nun.
To be honest, I know more about Eastern Orthodox teachings than the average Orthodox, more about Catholic teachings than the average Catholic, and more about Evangelical Protestant teachings than the average Evangelical Protestant. I believe I've adequately described my interest in Buddhism, and according to my local sensei, my interest in Buddhism makes sense given my life situation and life goals.
As for parallels between Christianity and Pure Land Buddhism, is there any evidence that the Pure Land sutras were in any way influenced by Christian theology? If so, please show me such evidence.
If you want to make comparisons between Christian faith and Buddhist faith, please read this:
The above part is what I consider the most important in response to the things that you said, but please look at the rest as well:
Of course, we'll only be able to see once we're in heaven the full scope of history. Till then, we can know for certain that religions have always intersected - and for myself, being a believer in God/Christ, my view is that those following the Lord are impacted at every turn when it comes to the history of God's people....
In addition to that, for anyone from a theistic perspective wanting to have a basis for knowing how and where things may have merged, it's interesting examining the Abrahamic faith (beginning in Genesis 12 and Genesis 11 - continued from Genesis 4 from the era where men around the world simply called on the name of the Lord universally - global consciousness of Theism and belief in One God as the way) t....that is the root of many of the world religions and what sprung from them in their own spheres.
On the issue, I forgot to add earlier the ways that Abrahamic religions have been noted to have some common links between Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist beliefs which makes sense as they all arose in the East. Some of this is said in light of how I read long ago an interesting article that had me thinking - as its entitled "Is There A Connection Between Ancient Indian And Hebrew Language?". Some have made clear that in the eras where the Jews were scattered throughout various empires (i.e. the Persians, Greeks, Alexander the Great's Empire), that other cultures got clearly involved. Some say that the contact between Jews and Ancient India was mostly via Dilmun..and for more info, Bahrain has been inhabited since prehistoric times and several thousand burial mounds in the northern part of the main island probably date from the Sumerian Period of the 3rd millennium BC. It was the seat of ancient Dilmun -- a prosperous trading centre linking Sumer with the Indus Valley about 2000 BC. The archipelago was mentioned by Persian -- Greek -- Roman geographers and historians.
Something to consider...seeing how Jews in India have lived among the predominant Hindu and Muslim population for millennia (more shared here in Asian Jews and I like your Christ, I just don't like your Christians. But even outside of that, to see the way that there are common links and connections between groups is rather fascinating and it's something that should be kept in mind when studying the evolution of religions....some even noting that Christianity has had significant change in other places due to what Jesus may have learned in other times - like the speculation of his possibly travelling to the Eastern during His teen years and that being a dynamic that is a part of his similarities to things within Eastern Culture (#101 or here in #68 or here in #355 or #25 - and 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 ).
And this all goes back to understanding the realities of how religions can be shaped and changed by the Diasporas of larger groups or single individuals, as was the case for many Jewish groups living within Indian culture (as others like Sonja Benjamin note well among others when seeing how intersections can impact everything from art to expression)
And even outside of that, there have been examples of such throughout history of what seemed to be Crypto-Christianity...though at some points, it seems to have been in reverse. And one of them that came to mind can be best described in an article I was able to find entitled Laputan Logic--St. Buddha of India . As said there (for an excerpt):
St. Buddha of IndiaIndeed, the story is accepted by Catholics -as seen in Barlaam and Josaphat/Catholic Encylopedia - and thus, it is rather fascinating to consider the parallels.
Posted 1698 days ago #
Seeing that we're on the subject of Christians masquerading as Buddhists, I thought I should mention that Siddhartha Gautama (563 - 483 BC), the founder of the Buddhist religion, is also a canonised saint of the Catholic church!
While the beatification and sanctification of the Lord Buddha didn't actually happen until the 16th century, the story of his early life was quite popular in Europe during the Middle Ages where he was Christianized under the name of Josaphat, the Indian prince.
The story goes a bit like this:
Once upon a time, in the land of India there lived a brave and powerful king by the name of Abenner. After many years of fretting about having no heir to the throne, he eventually had a son named Josaphat. At the time his son's birth the king was told by a Chaldean astrologer that the infant prince would one day grow up and become a Christian holy man and give up his throne. This news greatly upset the king who was obviously most reluctant to lose his crown prince to this new religion (one which had been making steady gains ever since the pioneering work of the apostle St. Thomas). He therefore ordered that the Christian faith be banned entirely from his kingdom and he locked the prince away in the palace, providing for him every luxury imaginable so he would grow up never having any desire to come into contact with the outside world.
When Josaphat reached adulthood he found the cosseted nature of his existence unbearable and so pleaded with his father to release him from his captivity and let him go outside the palace walls. The king, who could see that his son had grown into a handsome and intelligent young man, did not wish to see him suffer needlessly and so he eventually agreed to his request. The prince quickly learnt that while the world outside was indeed a very beautiful place it was also marred by much sorrow and suffering. Josaphat came into contact with a monk by the name of Barlaam, a hermit from Senaar, who explained to him the causes of this suffering and in very little time converted him to the Christian faith.
King Abenner was, of course, most upset about this turn of events and could see that the prophesy was so very close to being fulfilled. Nevertheless he continued to try to obstruct his son's path. In one instance he attempted to have his son seduced by one of his concubines. The temptress, who was the enslaved daughter of another king, came to Josaphat and appealed to his desire to save souls from eternal damnation. In fact she was receiving her coaching directly from Satan himself so she was well versed in scripture. She promised Josaphat that she would certainly convert to Christianity if only he would just sleep with her that night
"Let this also be thy pleasure, as thou wilt. But fulfil me one other small and trivial desire of mine, if thou art in very truth minded for to save my soul. Keep company with me this one night only, and grant me to revel in thy beauty, and do thou in turn take thy fill of my comeliness. And I give thee my word, that, with daybreak, I will become a Christian, and forsake all the worship of my gods. Not only shalt thou be pardoned for this dealing, but thou shalt receive recompense from thy God because of my salvation..."At first this greatly inflamed the young prince's passions but eventually he managed to bring them under control (probably after a cold shower) and he was then able to resolutely reject the beautiful lady's advances. Josaphat had defeated all temptation and remained pure and committed to his new faith. The story was eventually resolved by the King who then chose to become a Christian. After his death, Josaphat ruled the kingdom for a time though having no interest in earthly matters he abdicated the throne and spent the remainder of his days with the old monk Barlaam, living as a religious recluse.
Part XXX of Barlaam and Ioasaph by "John the Monk", translated into Greek possibly from a Georgian version sometime in the 11th century
Saint Josaphat preaching Christianity. 12th century Greek manuscript.
While many of the particulars of the story have changed to suit its new role as Christian hagiography, the story's Buddhist origins remain highly recognisable. Siddhartha Gautama was also a prince whose birth was accompanied with a prophecy that he would become a great holy man but not a king. He was also protected from the outside world by his father but on leaving the palace he also recognised that the world was full of suffering. He sought to pursue an ascetic life and to reach enlightenment but during this process he was subjected to many attempts to deflect him from this path. He was tempted by the demon Mara who sent his three beautiful daughters, Tanha (desire), Raga (lust), and Arati (aversion) to try to seduce him while he sat meditating under a banyan tree. After resisting these temptations, the prince attained Buddhahood at the age of thirty five.
While the exact process by which this story became adopted into Christian folklore is far from clear, it is thought that it travelled via a chain of adaptations, possibly via Manichaeism, where the Bodhisattva in Sanskrit became rendered as Bodhisav in Persian, then as Budhasaf in Arabic, Iodasaph in Georgian, Ioasaph in Greek and then finally Josaphat in Western Europe.
The Buddha being tempted by the daughters of Mara, detail from The Life of the Buddha, Maitreya's dhoti, Alchi Sumtseg in Ladakh.
It wasn't until the 19th century, when the Buddhist scriptures finally began to be translated into European languages, that the connection between the two stories was noticed. Without any historical evidence to prove the independent existence of St. Josaphat, the Buddhist origin of the story is now generally accepted by Catholics.
However, despite rumours to the contrary, St. Josaphat remains to this day a recognised saint in the Catholic Church and he retains his place in the Roman Martyrology, a catalogue of martyrs and saints arranged as a calendar. Each day in the Martyrology provides the reader with edifying stories of various saints who may be optionally commemorated on that particular day.
The story of St. Josaphat aka the Lord Buddha is still commemorated on the 27th of November.
In Pure Land Buddhism, fantastically popular in Japan where it spread from China and India, we witness the ultimate spinning out of the logic of this redemptive theology. A long succession of Pure Land patriarchs, basing their teachings on the Longer and Shorter Sukhavati Sutras (= Pure Land Scriptures), sought to refine the meaning of salvation by grace through faith alone. Their Sutras have Gautama taking the role of John the Baptist, singing the greater glories of Amitabha Buddha, an ancient king who, hearing the preaching of a contemporary Buddha, renounced the throne and took up the discipline of the Bodhisattva. His strategy was to put all of his accumulated Karmic green Stamps toward the creation of a "Pure Land," a world in which one need only be reborn to achieve the stage of non-returning, the seventh stage of the Bodhisattva path (something that would otherwise take unthinkable eons of good works, as it did in the case of Amitabha himself). At the end of one lifetime in the Sukhavati, one would infallibly attain Buddhahood.
And how was to one guarantee one's reservations? Aye, there's the rub. The text said one need only call on Amitabha's name three times, and that would do it. But the various patriarchs sought to determine, with all the introspective microscrutiny of a medieval penance manual, precisely what mental condition constituted saving faith. What meditations and attitudes were required? As always happens with introspective pietism (read Watchman Nee, Andrew Murray, etc.) what looked easy turns out to be arduous and confusing--or is made to be so. Each subsequent patriarch narrowed the range of activity required, recognizing that the more a successful faith hinges upon one fulfilling certain conditions, the more salvation after all depends on one's own works ("Self-Power"). And this is incompatible with the doctrine hat one needs grace to be saved in the first place. On the one hand, we are so crushed beneath a burden of bad Karma that we would have no hope of ever working it off ourselves. On the other, we live in a degenerate age when the Dharma is but dimly understood. Facing Scylla and Charybdis in this way, we must be saved by grace ("Other-Power"), or we will not be saved at all. Hence the Pure Land theologians tried to circumvent the clever subterfuges of the self-exalting ego by placing complete and utter reliance on the Other-Power of Amitabha Buddha.
In the end, the Japanese patriarch Shinran wound up recapitulating Martin Luther and John Calvin: he taught that the first inkling of an inclination one felt to call upon the name of the Buddha was itself proof of Amitabha's prevenient grace. One could never have even sought such salvation without already having been given it! We cannot even seek to repent unless we have already been regenerated by the unilateral grace of God. If we were still sinners, we would think of nothing but continuing to sin. There is no question of subtle Christian missionary influence. It is just that the logic of piety, taught not to believe in its own power, and yet having to do something, however minimal and passive, always issues in the same solution, as it did also in Visistadvaita Vedanta Hinduism, which divided into the monkey school (believers must hang on to God's grace like a baby monkey carried by its mother) and the cat school (momma cat simply carries her kittens by the scruff of the neck, like it or not).
Is all this a betrayal of Buddhism with its doctrine of self-reliance? They say no, since a religion based on the negation of self can hardly rely for its success on Self-Power! Interesting point.
So here we have a religion containing the features of crippling original sin, bankrupt and worthless selfhood, salvation by passive faith in the vicarious sufferings of a redeemer (actually a whole stable of them, as in the Catholic calendar of saints), and all of this derived from an infallible scripture, not from one's own cherished intuitions. What is this religion? Buddhism. Christianity. Take your pick. If you prefer something less complex, something more self-reliant, you can always find revamped, streamlined versions of either religion. But, as they stand, neither is all that much different from the other in broad outline. When Maryanne embraced what she called Buddhism as an alternative to Christianity, she had merely exchanged six of one for half a dozen of the other, though she didn't know about at least three of them!
One might contend that Mahayana is a corrupt form of Buddhism, one that has lost sight of the vision of its Founder, whereas Christianity's corresponding doctrines are in continuity with the central vision of its Founder. But this is the worst kind of special pleading. If it happened to the one, it would be surprising if it hadn't happened to the other, too.
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_buddi.htm
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 .
There are many intersections on the issue, more seen in A Trinitarian Theology of Religions: An Evangelical Proposal ...
Additionally, as it concerns how Buddhism in differing ways was both influenced and rooted in Christianity at key points, some of this was brought up before elsewhere - as seen here:
It really would be a bit inconsequential to discuss what is or isn't "fair" when it comes to consistency - as representation is always a key factor and there has been a consistent practice based on previous comments of saying one is one thing when in truth they were never practicing that as the actual system claimed and as they mentioned. Thus, unless one was actually willing to go back/clarify to others that the previous claims done but 2 YEARS ago (despite saying "Well things have been happening with 6yrs") and thus meaning one never gave a real picture, it leaves the impression that one does hop around rather than stay consistent. No one claims to know more than the average Orthodox or Catholic or Evangelical and then advocate for things which even the average Orthodox or Catholic knows are basics to the faith (i.e. God as a PERSONAL being to be related to is true, Jesus is the way to Salvation rather than a mere way or teacher, etc.). No one says they were learning from an Orthodox priest approving of their invesigation and background in RCwhen Orthodox priests KNOW that you don't advocate for what Unity CHurch advocates or proclaim Buddhism as the way to go simultaneously - such actions would be grounds for immediate dismissal.I don't think it's fair or worth either of our time for me to go back and explain every detail of the past six years of my spiritual life. Some of the things you are saying about me are untrue, because they are based on incomplete information, but I don't feel that I have to explain myself further.
Please show me specifically how and when Christianity influenced Pure Land Buddhism.
As one can see, Pure Land Buddhism is rooted in ancient Buddhist texts and teachings, not in Christianity.
Already noted that earlier, as you already skipped over/left unadddressed when you avoided the following:Please show me specifically how and when Christianity influenced Pure Land Buddhism.
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 .
There are many intersections on the issue, more seen in A Trinitarian Theology of Religions: An Evangelical Proposal ...
Additionally, as it concerns how Buddhism in differing ways was both influenced and rooted in Christianity at key points, some of this was brought up before elsewhere - as seen here:
On the issue, I forgot to add earlier the ways that Abrahamic religions have been noted to have some common links between Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist beliefs which makes sense as they all arose in the East. Some of this is said in light of how I read long ago an interesting article that had me thinking - as its entitled "Is There A Connection Between Ancient Indian And Hebrew Language?". Some have made clear that in the eras where the Jews were scattered throughout various empires (i.e. the Persians, Greeks, Alexander the Great's Empire), that other cultures got clearly involved. Some say that the contact between Jews and Ancient India was mostly via Dilmun..and for more info, Bahrain has been inhabited since prehistoric times and several thousand burial mounds in the northern part of the main island probably date from the Sumerian Period of the 3rd millennium BC. It was the seat of ancient Dilmun -- a prosperous trading centre linking Sumer with the Indus Valley about 2000 BC. The archipelago was mentioned by Persian -- Greek -- Roman geographers and historians.
Something to consider...seeing how Jews in India have lived among the predominant Hindu and Muslim population for millennia (more shared here in Asian Jews and I like your Christ, I just don't like your Christians. But even outside of that, to see the way that there are common links and connections between groups is rather fascinating and it's something that should be kept in mind when studying the evolution of religions....some even noting that Christianity has had significant change in other places due to what Jesus may have learned in other times - like the speculation of his possibly travelling to the Eastern during His teen years and that being a dynamic that is a part of his similarities to things within Eastern Culture (#101 or here in #68 or here in #355 or #25 - and 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 ).
And this all goes back to understanding the realities of how religions can be shaped and changed by the Diasporas of larger groups or single individuals, as was the case for many Jewish groups living within Indian culture (as others like Sonja Benjamin note well among others when seeing how intersections can impact everything from art to expression)
And even outside of that, there have been examples of such throughout history of what seemed to be Crypto-Christianity...though at some points, it seems to have been in reverse. And one of them that came to mind can be best described in an article I was able to find entitled Laputan Logic--St. Buddha of India . As said there (for an excerpt):
St. Buddha of IndiaIndeed, the story is accepted by Catholics -as seen in Barlaam and Josaphat/Catholic Encylopedia - and thus, it is rather fascinating to consider the parallels.
Posted 1698 days ago #
Seeing that we're on the subject of Christians masquerading as Buddhists, I thought I should mention that Siddhartha Gautama (563 - 483 BC), the founder of the Buddhist religion, is also a canonised saint of the Catholic church!
While the beatification and sanctification of the Lord Buddha didn't actually happen until the 16th century, the story of his early life was quite popular in Europe during the Middle Ages where he was Christianized under the name of Josaphat, the Indian prince.
The story goes a bit like this:
Once upon a time, in the land of India there lived a brave and powerful king by the name of Abenner. After many years of fretting about having no heir to the throne, he eventually had a son named Josaphat. At the time his son's birth the king was told by a Chaldean astrologer that the infant prince would one day grow up and become a Christian holy man and give up his throne. This news greatly upset the king who was obviously most reluctant to lose his crown prince to this new religion (one which had been making steady gains ever since the pioneering work of the apostle St. Thomas). He therefore ordered that the Christian faith be banned entirely from his kingdom and he locked the prince away in the palace, providing for him every luxury imaginable so he would grow up never having any desire to come into contact with the outside world.
When Josaphat reached adulthood he found the cosseted nature of his existence unbearable and so pleaded with his father to release him from his captivity and let him go outside the palace walls. The king, who could see that his son had grown into a handsome and intelligent young man, did not wish to see him suffer needlessly and so he eventually agreed to his request. The prince quickly learnt that while the world outside was indeed a very beautiful place it was also marred by much sorrow and suffering. Josaphat came into contact with a monk by the name of Barlaam, a hermit from Senaar, who explained to him the causes of this suffering and in very little time converted him to the Christian faith.
King Abenner was, of course, most upset about this turn of events and could see that the prophesy was so very close to being fulfilled. Nevertheless he continued to try to obstruct his son's path. In one instance he attempted to have his son seduced by one of his concubines. The temptress, who was the enslaved daughter of another king, came to Josaphat and appealed to his desire to save souls from eternal damnation. In fact she was receiving her coaching directly from Satan himself so she was well versed in scripture. She promised Josaphat that she would certainly convert to Christianity if only he would just sleep with her that night
"Let this also be thy pleasure, as thou wilt. But fulfil me one other small and trivial desire of mine, if thou art in very truth minded for to save my soul. Keep company with me this one night only, and grant me to revel in thy beauty, and do thou in turn take thy fill of my comeliness. And I give thee my word, that, with daybreak, I will become a Christian, and forsake all the worship of my gods. Not only shalt thou be pardoned for this dealing, but thou shalt receive recompense from thy God because of my salvation..."At first this greatly inflamed the young prince's passions but eventually he managed to bring them under control (probably after a cold shower) and he was then able to resolutely reject the beautiful lady's advances. Josaphat had defeated all temptation and remained pure and committed to his new faith. The story was eventually resolved by the King who then chose to become a Christian. After his death, Josaphat ruled the kingdom for a time though having no interest in earthly matters he abdicated the throne and spent the remainder of his days with the old monk Barlaam, living as a religious recluse.
Part XXX of Barlaam and Ioasaph by "John the Monk", translated into Greek possibly from a Georgian version sometime in the 11th century
Saint Josaphat preaching Christianity. 12th century Greek manuscript.
While many of the particulars of the story have changed to suit its new role as Christian hagiography, the story's Buddhist origins remain highly recognisable. Siddhartha Gautama was also a prince whose birth was accompanied with a prophecy that he would become a great holy man but not a king. He was also protected from the outside world by his father but on leaving the palace he also recognised that the world was full of suffering. He sought to pursue an ascetic life and to reach enlightenment but during this process he was subjected to many attempts to deflect him from this path. He was tempted by the demon Mara who sent his three beautiful daughters, Tanha (desire), Raga (lust), and Arati (aversion) to try to seduce him while he sat meditating under a banyan tree. After resisting these temptations, the prince attained Buddhahood at the age of thirty five.
While the exact process by which this story became adopted into Christian folklore is far from clear, it is thought that it travelled via a chain of adaptations, possibly via Manichaeism, where the Bodhisattva in Sanskrit became rendered as Bodhisav in Persian, then as Budhasaf in Arabic, Iodasaph in Georgian, Ioasaph in Greek and then finally Josaphat in Western Europe.
The Buddha being tempted by the daughters of Mara, detail from The Life of the Buddha, Maitreya's dhoti, Alchi Sumtseg in Ladakh.
It wasn't until the 19th century, when the Buddhist scriptures finally began to be translated into European languages, that the connection between the two stories was noticed. Without any historical evidence to prove the independent existence of St. Josaphat, the Buddhist origin of the story is now generally accepted by Catholics.
However, despite rumours to the contrary, St. Josaphat remains to this day a recognised saint in the Catholic Church and he retains his place in the Roman Martyrology, a catalogue of martyrs and saints arranged as a calendar. Each day in the Martyrology provides the reader with edifying stories of various saints who may be optionally commemorated on that particular day.
The story of St. Josaphat aka the Lord Buddha is still commemorated on the 27th of November.
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 .
There are many intersections on the issue, more seen in A Trinitarian Theology of Religions: An Evangelical Proposal ...
Additionally, as it concerns how Buddhism in differing ways was both influenced and rooted in Christianity at key points, some of this was brought up before elsewhere - as seen here:
Of course, we know that Pure Land Buddhism originated in India, developed considerably in China, and was then transmitted to Japan in the Heian period. I suggest going back to read fully what Pure Land Buddhism actually says when it comes to the distinct differences. Again, While you have Christians familiar with the culture who know how to interact with it, you also have a lot of misunderstandings - for the Buddhists don't claim that Siddhartha Gautama was divine in the sense that Jesus was supposed to be divine.....even though many Christians already knew nuances on what it meant to be divine and honor authority (with it even being the case that there was already a concept of grace found within Pure Land Buddhism just as it was within Christianity if aware of Shinran Shonin, deemed to be Japan's "Martin Luther .... more shared here andhere/here
Of course, we know that Pure Land Buddhism originated in India, developed considerably in China, and was then transmitted to Japan in the Heian period. I suggest going back to read fully what Pure Land Buddhism actually says when it comes to the distinct differences. Again, While you have Christians familiar with the culture who know how to interact with it, you also have a lot of misunderstandings - for the Buddhists don't claim that Siddhartha Gautama was divine in the sense that Jesus was supposed to be divine.....even though many Christians already knew nuances on what it meant to be divine and honor authority (with it even being the case that there was already a concept of grace found within Pure Land Buddhism just as it was within Christianity if aware of Shinran Shonin, deemed to be Japan's "Martin Luther .... more shared here andhere/here
First, "Amida" symbolizes Shakyamuni, a historical person. Just as Strickland, the hero in Summerset Maugham’s novel The Moon and Sixpence, is a symbol of the painter Gauguin, a historical person, "Amida" can be considered a symbol of Shakyamuni, a historical person. We can say that "Amida" symbolizes the "humble and dynamic spirit" of Shakyamuni. As we have seen, Mahayanists created the concept of "Amida" in order to criticize the fossilized doctrines of Hinayanists and restore the vital spirit of Shakyamuni.
Second, "Amida" symbolizes the Dharma or universal Buddhahood. Mahayanists created the concept not only to express the vital spirit of Shakyamuni, but also to show the spiritual basis of Shakyamuni and all human beings. They wanted to show that just as Shakyamuni was awakened and liberated by the Dharma (or universal Buddhahood), all human beings are awakened and liberated by it.
http://www.livingdharma.org/Living.Dharma.Articles/WhatIsAmida-Haneda.html
Id I would suggest actually doing real study on the timeline of Pure Land Buddhism when it came in the first and second centuries and seeing the spread of Christianity around the world - including with the It really isn't complicated or hidden. As it concerns the Nestorian roots of the "salvation by grace" aspect of "pure land Buddhism" and the extent to which Nestorianism influenced Chinese Buddhism and Korean/Japanese Buddhism, One can also investigate
Confucius, the Buddha, and Christ: A History of the Gospel
Robert Price, concerning the article you referenced, neither addresses the Nestorian roots in land PRE-CEDEDING the rise of Pure Land Buddhism nor does he deal with Buddhist texts themselves so it really doesn't do much in way of argument to somehow claim Pure Land Buddhism did not arise from Christianity at multiple points.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?