Does apologetics "work"?

[muichimotsu]

That's not as rare as you think, nor is personalist ethics in the Christian tradition merely confined to Joseph Fletcher's articulation of "situation ethics". That was what Bonhoeffer was driving at in his ethics, after all, with his critique of a strict Kantian account of ethics. It's been highly influential among most mainline Protestants, and also many Catholics.

Again, I think the distinction here is between laity and more scholarly types, because I feel like if you asked 100 Christians with maybe college education, they're not going to be able to enumerate even foundational aspects of their ethical theory, but that's a general problem in America especially with Christianity being more a social club than anything that often will encourage critical thinking. Not that there aren't groups that do, my alma mater having a weekly Catechumenate for discussing Christian faith, so it's there, just probably less well known given the state of Christianity in America, where it spread virally

 

[FireDragon76]

I wonder sometimes if Gautama would be proud of them.

I don't normally say anything good about Buddhism, but if he's representing the Eightfold Path, I'm Genghis Khan.

He represents an extreme form of Buddhist modernism. Buddhist Modernism arose in its dominant form most Americans are familiar with (from the writings of D.T. Suzuki) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Japan, because of a defensiveness due to the criticism by State Shinto that Buddhism was "superstitious".

Buddhism is about seeking truth. Seeking truth is impossible without belief that there is such a thing in the first place, and faith that we can know it, either in this life or the next. Buddhism also understands that seeking truth is not a morally neutral affair, that is why ethics drives Buddhist epistemology and metaphysics.

If Christians are happy being Christians, there is simply no reason to attack Christians for being religious, from a Buddhist standpoint. The only reason we should challenge Christianity is on specific actions that are unethical and do harm. But merely having a religious disposition is not something that Buddhists can criticize without engaging in hypocrisy.

In many real Buddhist liturgies, there are prayers for "all who seek Truth". It is simply wrong to necessarily see Christians as not being included in that category merely because of a particular religious disposition.

 

[FireDragon76]

And even Quakers are arguably seeking salvation from something instead of liberation from wrong thinking, though certainly there can be overlap, much like common parallels of thought in Buddhism and Christianity in general.

The distinction between liberation or salvation isn't essentially different. Some Christians conceptualize salvation as liberation, after all.

Veneration is not worship, this is practically common sense, seeing as you have that distinction made by Catholics: they don't worship Mary or Peter or such, they venerate them as examples to follow. But the idea of taking refuge in the Buddha is not comparable to any notions of adoration or worship directed at Jesus and God. And that's primarily because Buddha is not saving you from anything, that's your responsibility first and foremost, Buddha Gautama offered advice at most.

That's a distinction Buddhists themselves don't make.

 

[FireDragon76]

Again, I think the distinction here is between laity and more scholarly types, because I feel like if you asked 100 Christians with maybe college education, they're not going to be able to enumerate even foundational aspects of their ethical theory, but that's a general problem in America especially with Christianity being more a social club than anything that often will encourage critical thinking. Not that there aren't groups that do, my alma mater having a weekly Catechumenate for discussing Christian faith, so it's there, just probably less well known given the state of Christianity in America, where it spread virally

You will find it articulated more clearly in some churches, but not others. It really depends on the religious denomination.

 

[muichimotsu]

I wonder sometimes if Gautama would be proud of them.

I don't normally say anything good about Buddhism, but if he's representing the Eightfold Path, I'm Genghis Khan.

You assume he's still alive or that it's universally agreed among Buddhists that he is or is judging people at all, that's generally a later development historically with the blending into other religious traditions in the area (China in particular, as well as Japan)

You know what Thumper's mom said when you can't say anything nice, right? Or did you never watch Bambi?

 

[muichimotsu]

You will find it articulated more clearly in some churches, but not others. It really depends on the religious denomination.

And that's going to vary, which is the reason for the generally inconsistent chaotic state of things with regards to anything "Christian" in the first place, the label almost useless to an extent the further down the rabbit hole you go

 

[muichimotsu]

The distinction between liberation or salvation isn't essentially different. Some Christians conceptualize salvation as liberation, after all.

And that's metaphorical, using a specific definition that equates liberation and salvation rather than seeing the ontological nuance that could be applied

That's a distinction Buddhists themselves don't make.

Not sure either of us get to talk in generalities about Buddhism by your own standards you established, some Buddhists maybe, but it's not universal and usually is rooted in Western ignorance about the practice, thinking it idolatry or such rather than just a form of meditation or veneration of someone seen as an ideal, not an object of worship

 

[AV1611VET]

In many real Buddhist liturgies, there are prayers for "all who seek Truth". It is simply wrong to necessarily see Christians as not being included in that category merely because of a particular religious disposition.

If I may ask, what is your religion?

If you don't want to say, that's fine -- just ignore my question.

 

[FireDragon76]

And that's going to vary, which is the reason for the generally inconsistent chaotic state of things with regards to anything "Christian" in the first place, the label almost useless to an extent the further down the rabbit hole you go

Sure, it's chaotic, but in a forum discussing the merits of different ideas, sweeping generalizations are not fair, despite all that chaos.

And that's metaphorical, using a specific definition that equates liberation and salvation rather than seeing the ontological nuance that could be applied

There really are Christians that see soteriology primarily in liberationist terms. Like Liberation theologians, for instance.

Not sure either of us get to talk in generalities about Buddhism by your own standards you established, some Buddhists maybe, but it's not universal and usually is rooted in Western ignorance about the practice, thinking it idolatry or such rather than just a form of meditation or veneration of someone seen as an ideal, not an object of worship

I am personally familiar with Pure Land practice, having known people that converted to Buddhism, as well as participating myself, and it's not "western ignorance" that I am speaking from.

 

[AV1611VET]

You assume he's still alive ...

Well if he is, he's probably in hiding.

Didn't one of his factions put a fatwa out on him?

 

[FireDragon76]

If I may ask, what is your religion?

If you don't want to say, that's fine -- just ignore my question.

I am still technically a member of a Lutheran church, but I haven't been going in quite a while (COVID mostly make that impossible, at any rate).

I consider myself a seeker with strong Buddhist inclinations and I do practice meditation and various yogic practices.

In the past, well over a decade ago, I practiced both Zen and Pure Land Buddhism, so I have experienced both.

 

[muichimotsu]

Sure, it's chaotic, but in a forum discussing the merits of different ideas, sweeping generalizations are not fair, despite all that chaos.

Not sure how my notions with a qualifier of "some" is a sweeping generalization or the notions that are not made as absolute statements in terms of rough divisions made between religions so as not to just make them all indistinguishable and engage in postmodern relativism

There really are Christians that see soteriology primarily in liberationist terms. Like Liberation theologians, for instance.

The problem remains that the liberation is from outside, it is not internal as I'd argue Dharmic religions are more focused on, you become one with the universe in Hinduism to an extent, you aren't seeking the universe to unify you with it, you do so because you aren't that distinct ultimately in the grand scheme of Brahman.

I am personally familiar with Pure Land practice, having known people that converted to Buddhism, as well as participating myself, and it's not "western ignorance" that I am speaking from.

Don't believe I attributed the Western ignorance to you in particular and individual experiences are just that. The fundamental problem here is that I don't feel there is a label that works, Buddhism more functional at best in the ideas, even if I don't prescribe to the mystical flavor or supernatural/spiritual claims made by adherents

 

[FireDragon76]

You assume he's still alive or that it's universally agreed among Buddhists that he is or is judging people at all, that's generally a later development historically with the blending into other religious traditions in the area (China in particular, as well as Japan)

Buddha doesn't judge, that's what Yama does.

Some Buddhists do believe the Buddha can be described as existing, though his existence is entirely different from a mundane existence that we experience. And some see that existence in more mystical terms. As Thitch Nhat Hanh is fond of saying, the Buddha did not die because he is present in the Dharma and the Sangha. And from a Buddhist ontology, that is perfectly reasonable since our true nature is beyond birth and death.

Lastly, Mahayana Buddhism began in northern India, not China or Japan. It spread into those countries, but what we recognize as Mahayana with its multitude of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas was already present by around the time of the common era, well before Buddhism reached China. If any religions did influence Mahayana, it was probably Zoroastrianism, since the central figures in both, Amithaba Buddha and Ahura Mazda, are both thought to be beings that represent spiritual light and immortality, with associated promises of otherworldly salvation.

 

[muichimotsu]

Well if he is, he's probably in hiding.

Didn't one of his factions put a fatwa out on him?

And you betray a gross ignorance of even basic information we have, which is that he passed away and a general conclusion was an achievement of nirvana, though even that varies as to whether Buddha is sort of "one with the universe" or perhaps delayed enlightenement to become a bodhisattva.

No one's perfect, not even Jesus by the basic descriptions in the Gospels, so let's not throw stones while living in glass houses

 

[muichimotsu]

Buddha doesn't judge, that's what Yama does.

Some Buddhists do believe the Buddha can be described as existing, though his existence is entirely different from a mundane existence that we experience. And some see that existence in more mystical terms. As Thitch Nhat Hanh is fond of saying, the Buddha did not die because he is present in the Dharma and the Sangha. And from a Buddhist ontology, that is perfectly reasonable since our true nature is beyond birth and death.

Lastly, Mahayana Buddhism began in northern India, not China or Japan. It spread into those countries, but what we recognize as Mahayana with its multitude of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas was already present by around the time of the common era, well before Buddhism reached China. If any religions did influence Mahayana, it was probably Zoroastrianism, since the central figures in both, Amithaba Buddha and Ahura Mazda, are both thought to be beings that represent spiritual light and immortality, with associated promises of otherworldly salvation.

Fundamentally, the spread is what creates more confusion even if there are basics in place from the initial outset before it became interwoven with other religious traditions.

Our "true nature" seems to be grasping for ultimacy in a permanent manner, antithetical to anatta as one of the three truths. There are layers, sure, but I'd seek less for something beyond life and death and more focus on improving the world in some way, imperfect as it is

Someone existing metaphorically is little different than me saying I will survive my death in the memories people have of me, but even that is transient, technically

 

[FireDragon76]

The problem remains that the liberation is from outside, it is not internal as I'd argue Dharmic religions are more focused on, you become one with the universe in Hinduism to an extent, you aren't seeking the universe to unify you with it, you do so because you aren't that distinct ultimately in the grand scheme of Brahman.

There are different schools of Hinduism, the largest are actually monotheistic and not that different in its perceived goal or means from Christianity. Liberation being achieved through realization of ones dependence on divine grace (a concept also found in Sikhism, birth is due to karma, but liberation is due to grace).

Buddhism more functional at best in the ideas, even if I don't prescribe to the mystical flavor or supernatural/spiritual claims made by adherents

If you reject both mysticism and "the supernatural", it's difficult to see how the label "Buddhist" is all that useful, since a mystical realization, that of Siddartha Gauthama, is at the heart of Buddhism.

 

[muichimotsu]

He represents an extreme form of Buddhist modernism. Buddhist Modernism arose in its dominant form most Americans are familiar with (from the writings of D.T. Suzuki) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Japan, because of a defensiveness due to the criticism by State Shinto that Buddhism was "superstitious".

Buddhism is about seeking truth. Seeking truth is impossible without belief that there is such a thing in the first place, and faith that we can know it, either in this life or the next. Buddhism also understands that seeking truth is not a morally neutral affair, that is why ethics drives Buddhist epistemology and metaphysics.

If Christians are happy being Christians, there is simply no reason to attack Christians for being religious, from a Buddhist standpoint. The only reason we should challenge Christianity is on specific actions that are unethical and do harm. But merely having a religious disposition is not something that Buddhists can criticize without engaging in hypocrisy.

In many real Buddhist liturgies, there are prayers for "all who seek Truth". It is simply wrong to necessarily see Christians as not being included in that category merely because of a particular religious disposition.

The problem is merely seeking truth is not the same as being honest about whether you've found it or not, and also whether it can be said to be truly absolute or technically provisional.

Christians, though not all, tend to have an all or nothing mentality, that they have the exclusive truth, in no small part because the God they propose to exist is effectively both within and without the universe and can thus be excluded from rules that otherwise apply.

Buddhism is in contrast to that, but can potentially fall prey to a kind of epistemological relativism where all pursuits are equally valid instead of acknowledging that some are going to suffer majorly because of underlying principles like the three truths and people ignoring them to comfort themselves with promises of an eternal afterlife or such

 

[muichimotsu]

There are different schools of Hinduism, the largest are actually monotheistic and not that different in its perceived goal or means from Christianity. Liberation being achieved through realization of ones dependence on divine grace (a concept also found in Sikhism, birth is due to karma, but liberation is due to grace).

Being able to find commonality between Western and Eastern traditions can betray a sense that you want to eliminate the differences as important except on a surface level rather than being fundamentally at odds in some cases

If you reject both mysticism and "the supernatural", it's difficult to see how the label "Buddhist" is all that useful, since a mystical realization, that of Siddartha Gauthama, is at the heart of Buddhism.

I'd debate if it was mystical rather than introspective, those aren't the same thing qualitatively, since one remains essentially an ineffable statement that also becomes unfalsifiable in the claims made about reality fundamentally

If not that, then what would you suggest? I've done a thread somewhere on the labels being too reductive or even too broad (Freethought is not exclusively nonreligious in nature, even if it's more common, for one example), but it basically was rejected almost outright because any nuance was seen as "unnecessary", because bureaucratic nonsense is more important than critical thought about being inclusive and still having principles alongside that which don't contradict inclusivity, but encourage it

 

[AV1611VET]

I am still technically a member of a Lutheran church, but I haven't been going in quite a while (COVID mostly make that impossible, at any rate).

I consider myself a seeker with strong Buddhist inclinations and I do practice meditation and various yogic practices.

In the past, well over a decade ago, I practiced both Zen and Pure Land Buddhism, so I have experienced both.

I know you didn't ask, but you realize I think you're fooling with something you shouldn't, don't you?

The idea that you can awaken Shakti and have him (her?) move through your chakras to your third eye, so as to achieve Kundalini is inviting demonic spirits into your life.

Just saying.

 

[FireDragon76]

I know you didn't ask, but you realize I think you're fooling with something you shouldn't, don't you?

The idea that you can awaken Shakti and have him (her?) move through your chakras to your third eye, so as to achieve Kundalini is inviting demonic spirits into your life.

Besides the fact I don't necessarily believe in that (Shakti is a Hindu concept), I really don't accept that as plausible (how exactly would it open a person to "demonic spirits"?). That in my estimation is just an attempt to scare people away from "brand X".