Buddhist Mindfulness and Christian Vigilance.

[Akita Suggagaki]

It is my understanding that apophatic theology would tend to reject God as an object. Both the Cloud of Unknowing and Eckhart talking about "letting go of God", for instance.

There are different forms of Buddhist meditation. The one I am familiar with, is simply putting ones attention on ones breathing.

Apophatic apophatic rejects images of God, letting go of mental constructs.

Of course the main difference is the context or fundamental world view or metaphysical vision.

In Christianity we have a fundamental personal, loving, ground of being with a plan and will for us.
In Buddhism it seems to me there is an impersonal nature of reality that we are part of.

What do you think?

 

[FireDragon76]

Apophatic apophatic rejects images of God, letting go of mental constructs.

Of course the main difference is the context or fundamental world view or metaphysical vision.

In Christianity we have a fundamental personal, loving, ground of being with a plan and will for us.
In Buddhism it seems to me there is an impersonal nature of reality that we are part of.

What do you think?

I don't think the differences are so stark. Christian apophatic theology would even say that the term "personal" is limited when describing God. Indeed, in Eastern theology of Pseudo-Dionysius, God is described as "super-essential", beyond essence. Ekchart describes God as "nothing". Also, it is not completely true to say that Buddhism conceives of ultimate reality as completely impersonal.

I think the real differences are in eschatology and religious practice. That is one of the main reasons I still consider myself a Christian. Buddhism is relatively weak on eschatology, but then many forms of popular Christian eschatology in the US drop the ball altogether here, and Protestants and Catholics traditionally have not properly understood the meaning of basileia to theou, (the Kingdom of God) as pointing to a participatory ontology, because they look at salvation primarily through moral or juridical categories.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I don't think the differences are so stark. Christian apophatic theology would even say that the term "personal" is limited when describing God. Indeed, in Eastern theology of Pseudo-Dionysius, God is described as "super-essential", beyond essence. Ekchart describes God as "nothing". Also, it is not completely true to say that Buddhism conceives of ultimate reality as completely impersonal.

I think the real differences are in eschatology and religious practice. That is one of the main reasons I still consider myself a Christian. Buddhism is relatively weak on eschatology, but then many forms of popular Christian eschatology in the US drop the ball altogether here, and Protestants and Catholics traditionally have not properly understood the meaning of basileia to theou, (the Kingdom of God) as pointing to a participatory ontology, because they look at salvation primarily through moral or juridical categories.

Well, you know, I have thought that our understanding of "personal" is flawed. Our own personhood seems so different from the personhood of God if we are going to insists on God's personhood. By that I mean what kind of person cannot be seen nor heard?

I am not sure about Buddhist eschatology unless it involves the salvation of all beings in some future realm.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, Christian watchfulness has a bit of a moral judgment. Be on watch for "the adversary" within. Buddhist mindfulness seems to be just observe and accept what is.

Buddhism can have this element as well, at times. Sila or morality is one of the components of the Eight Fold Path. It's just not understood with the kind of absolutism as in a religion like Catholicism, traditionally. Buddhism is more quietistic, in comparison.

The purpose of morality in Buddhism is ultimately to reflect an attitude of kindness or benevolence, which leads to inner tranquility and letting go of kleshas or afflictions.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, you know, I have thought that our understanding of "personal" is flawed. Our own personhood seems so different from the personhood of God if we are going to insists on God's personhood. By that I mean what kind of person cannot be seen nor heard?

I am not sure about Buddhist eschatology unless it involves the salvation of all beings in some future realm.

Mahayana Buddhism has the notion of cosmic salvation in the Lotus Sutra. However, not all Buddhists have it as a central part of their religion. Also, the basic worldview it emerged from (ancient India) tends to militate against the idea of progress or historical significance.

What impressed me was the mysticism of Teilhard de Chardin, and how it reconciles eschatology with evolution. There is nothing like that in Buddhism. The Buddhist creation stories (there isn't just one) are far less realistic than even the Bible's. Most were probably drawn from pre-Buddhist sources.

 

[zippy2006]

It is my understanding that apophatic theology would tend to reject God as an object. Both the Cloud of Unknowing and Eckhart talking about "letting go of God", for instance.

Sure, and that's why I said "or quasi-object." But although both The Cloud and Eckhart use that sort of language at times, at other times they speak of God as an object of the intellect or the awareness, and generally speaking they are intentionally and consciously oriented towards the reality of God in a way that the Buddhist is not. Eckhart is probably the closest to Buddhism of all the Western mystics, though, and D. T. Suzuki takes advantage of this in his Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sure, and that's why I said "or quasi-object." But although both The Cloud and Eckhart use that sort of language at times, at other times they speak of God as an object of the intellect or the awareness, and generally speaking they are intentionally and consciously oriented towards the reality of God in a way that the Buddhist is not.

Sure, but you can do the same in Buddhism. It's possible to speak of the Dharmakaya as a thing or an object. However, the religious praxis, especially in Zen, is transcendental apophaticism in a more thoroughgoing way than what you'ld find out of something like Roman Catholicism.

I don't think it's just Eckhart or a few medieval mystics, either. Paul Tillich's Protestant theology also has the same implications, in recognizing the limitations of religious symbols, including God.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Mahayana Buddhism has the notion of cosmic salvation in the Lotus Sutra. However, not all Buddhists have it as a central part of their religion. Also, the basic worldview it emerged from (ancient India) tends to militate against the idea of progress or historical significance.

What impressed me was the mysticism of Teilhard de Chardin, and how it reconciles eschatology with evolution. There is nothing like that in Buddhism. The Buddhist creation stories (there isn't just one) are far less realistic than even the Bible's. Most were probably drawn from pre-Buddhist sources.

Yes, I remember India being more circular than linear.

Teilhard was a game changer. And a contemporary of Aurobindo, another evolutionary eschatologist. My main go to guy.

 

[St_Worm2]

Yes, secular as well. I think in some Buddhism there is prayer to Buddha and Bodhisattvas.

Hello again Akita, I've heard that as well, that there is a sect(s) (if that is the proper term) of Buddhists who choose to pray, but unlike us, they also seem to know that know one is listening (after all, both the Buddha and Bodhisattvas are merely men and women, not divine). As I read on one Buddhist site:

Most Buddhists don’t pray to or for anything. Buddhist practice is often seen as the opposite: aspiring to let go of everything.​

As interesting as this thread is, it seems to be heading in the direction of a thread that might be found on a Buddhist website instead (on a board called, Struggles by non-Buddhists ). Perhaps caution is advisable as we continue on with this since the promotion of other, non-Christian religions here at CF is a definite no-no (I'm sure the mods will let us know, but that might be done by locking the thread).

God bless you!!

--David

 

[public hermit]

This has been a very helpful thread. To compare and contrast Christian spirituality with that of other religions or approaches is constructive. I see no reason to fear understanding. Thanks for an enlightening thread @Akita Suggagaki

 

[FireDragon76]

Hello again Akita, I've heard that as well, that there is a sect(s) (if that is the proper term) of Buddhists who choose to pray, but unlike us, they also seem to know that know one is listening (after all, both the Buddha and Bodhisattvas are merely men and women, not divine).

Buddhists consider Buddhas to be more than merely human, similar to how Christians think of Jesus as more than merely human.

As I read on one Buddhist site:

Most Buddhists don’t pray to or for anything.​

That's also not really true, either, though the significance and value of prayer varies from Buddhist sect to Buddhist sect.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Hello again Akita, I've heard that as well, that there is a sect(s) (if that is the proper term) of Buddhists who choose to pray, but unlike us, they also seem to know that know one is listening (after all, both the Buddha and Bodhisattvas are merely men and women, not divine). As I read on one Buddhist site:

Most Buddhists don’t pray to or for anything. Buddhist practice is often seen as the opposite: aspiring to let go of everything.​

As interesting as this thread is, it seems to be heading in the direction of a thread that might be found on a Buddhist website instead (on a board called, Struggles by non-Buddhists ). Perhaps caution is advisable as we continue on with this since the promotion of other, non-Christian religions here at CF is a definite no-no (I'm sure the mods will let us know, but that might be done by locking the thread).

God bless you!!

--David

As a Christian I don't intend to promote Buddhism. I belong to a mindfulness group in my local town and I am always pointing out to them the differences since a few of them also claim to be Christian. But by golly, when we get in to apophatic spirituality there are some interesting commonalities. But I still think the main difference is the fundamental ontology, and that has to do with personhood.

Now the "letting go" aspect, I think, is the major challenge of both. And I think the key challenge of any worthwhile philosophy or world view.

This thing called, moksha, liberation, equanimity, ataraxia...many names for it...has to do with an inner transformation of how we respond to reality, especially reality we do not like. i see it as the REAL yoga, the REAL dying to self, kenosis.

 

[dcalling]

As a Christian I don't intend to promote Buddhism. I belong to a mindfulness group in my local town and I am always pointing out to them the differences since a few of them also claim to be Christian. But by golly, when we get in to apophatic spirituality there are some interesting commonalities. But I still think the main difference is the fundamental ontology, and that has to do with personhood.

Now the "letting go" aspect, I think, is the major challenge of both. And I think the key challenge of any worthwhile philosophy or world view.

This thing called, moksha, liberation, equanimity, ataraxia...many names for it...has to do with an inner transformation of how we respond to reality, especially reality we do not like. i see it as the REAL yoga, the REAL dying to self, kenosis.

I used to do this a lot before became a Christian, it feels rather different when you are "in the calmness" (I think most people give up if they don't feel it) and still do it a bit from time to time. The major difference I think is for Buddhist, it is a way to enlightening, but for Christians we know the only way to God is his Word, so it is more similar to regular exercise.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I used to do this a lot before became a Christian, it feels rather different when you are "in the calmness" (I think most people give up if they don't feel it) and still do it a bit from time to time. The major difference I think is for Buddhist, it is a way to enlightening, but for Christians we know the only way to God is his Word, so it is more similar to regular exercise.

I am skeptical about the entire Buddhist "Enlightenment" thing. That does that even mean? Insight? Knowledge? Most importantly, how does it help us to live? What criteria is there for one who claims enlightenment?

What I am looking for is equanimity, steady peace even in the midst of difficulties no matter how hard.

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

After Staff Review

This Thread
is Now
Permanently Closed

RV: Statement of Purpose - Struggles by Non-Christians

Only non-Christians may start threads here, and only orthodox Christians may reply to your thread. Christians (orthodox and unorthodox) may not start threads here.

MOD HAT OFF​