Questions about Buddhism

[Tom 1]

Hello,

I'm curious about what the points of similarity are between Christianity and Buddhism. Anyone here who is a convert from Christianity to Buddhism, or just very familiar with both, who can highlight anything the two religions have in common?

I'm also curious about the sense of self in Buddhism. When I first read about it, a long time ago, I took the attainment of nirvana to mean a kind of dissolution of self. I spoke with a Thai Buddhist about this idea more recently, and the idea is different to what I had thought but she found it difficult to express it exactly, something like an ultimate self-actualisation, but not that exactly either. I wondered if it is similar or very different to the the 'new name' - which I take to be something like a new identity, or a refining of an existing identity, in revelation 2:17 ( I will also give him a white stone, on which is written a new name that nobody knows except the one receiving it) - or if the concept is very different to that.

Thanks.

 

[Christian Sonic Fan]

At one point in my life I actually considered myself a Buddhist. I'm a Christian now so perhaps I could maybe give some similarities between the two because of my journey.

Firstly, I suppose one could compare Karma with Sin. Karma is like a set amount of good luck that you have and if you do more good deeds then you will have more good luck. If you do bad deeds then you will have bad luck. With the Bible, sin is just purley bad and doing bad things. However, God (I don't think at least) will "get you back" for doing bad things; that requires your own conviction and your own realization that you did bad and you ask for forgiveness. Buddhists believe in "what goes around comes around" aka karma Which, now that I think about it, God gets people back as well as a means of justice so I guess the two compare?

Secondly, I suppose you could compare Dharma with the teachings of God and how to become closer to him. In Buddhism, Dharma means "to keep" and it is the realization of all things around you and what the Gods have set up such as the universe, the stars, etc. etc. It can mean many many things such as tasting and realizing what the flavor of the food you are tasting is or perhaps seeing a tree and realizing that it is green. This is a very abstract concept and I don't know if this is in Christianity but the closest I could compare it to is the realization that you need Jesus and that he is the only way to salvation and eternal life. Perhaps also it could be compared to belief and that once you believe in Jesus then you won't fear death. (This one is hard to explain honestly.)

Lastly, I could compare Zen to Christianity (though Zen is not mainline Buddhism and it is exclusive mainly to Japan. I was a Zen Buddhist though so I could compare these two things.) With Zen, it is the realization that all things are imperfect and that they must live in harmony with nature. If not, it upsets the balance of life which is yin and yang. It's very peaceful. When compared to God, God wanted us to live and rule over the plants, the animals, the trees, etc. and to cultivate the land. He wanted us to be kind to one another and to spread the gospel to all parts of the land which is peace. (I guess this compares?)

I wasn't a Buddhist for very long so I wouldn't be able to tell you much more. I was a Buddhist for maybe a month, then I found out that it wasn't for me. I felt horrible betraying God but at least I learned a few things. They aren't much but I hope I could help you a little bit. Someone who is a Buddhist would probably correct me on how badly I butchered their beliefs but at least I can say that I tried. The whole religion is very abstract so it was hard to capture a lot of what they talked about as it relies on many concepts balled into 1 thing I guess.

 

[Tom 1]

At one point in my life I actually considered myself a Buddhist. I'm a Christian now so perhaps I could maybe give some similarities between the two because of my journey.

Firstly, I suppose one could compare Karma with Sin. Karma is like a set amount of good luck that you have and if you do more good deeds then you will have more good luck. If you do bad deeds then you will have bad luck. With the Bible, sin is just purley bad and doing bad things. However, God (I don't think at least) will "get you back" for doing bad things; that requires your own conviction and your own realization that you did bad and you ask for forgiveness. Buddhists believe in "what goes around comes around" aka karma Which, now that I think about it, God gets people back as well as a means of justice so I guess the two compare?

Secondly, I suppose you could compare Dharma with the teachings of God and how to become closer to him. In Buddhism, Dharma means "to keep" and it is the realization of all things around you and what the Gods have set up such as the universe, the stars, etc. etc. It can mean many many things such as tasting and realizing what the flavor of the food you are tasting is or perhaps seeing a tree and realizing that it is green. This is a very abstract concept and I don't know if this is in Christianity but the closest I could compare it to is the realization that you need Jesus and that he is the only way to salvation and eternal life. Perhaps also it could be compared to belief and that once you believe in Jesus then you won't fear death. (This one is hard to explain honestly.)

Lastly, I could compare Zen to Christianity (though Zen is not mainline Buddhism and it is exclusive mainly to Japan. I was a Zen Buddhist though so I could compare these two things.) With Zen, it is the realization that all things are imperfect and that they must live in harmony with nature. If not, it upsets the balance of life which is yin and yang. It's very peaceful. When compared to God, God wanted us to live and rule over the plants, the animals, the trees, etc. and to cultivate the land. He wanted us to be kind to one another and to spread the gospel to all parts of the land which is peace. (I guess this compares?)

I wasn't a Buddhist for very long so I wouldn't be able to tell you much more. I was a Buddhist for maybe a month, then I found out that it wasn't for me. I felt horrible betraying God but at least I learned a few things. They aren't much but I hope I could help you a little bit. Someone who is a Buddhist would probably correct me on how badly I butchered their beliefs but at least I can say that I tried. The whole religion is very abstract so it was hard to capture a lot of what they talked about as it relies on many concepts balled into 1 thing I guess.

Thanks, that’s interesting. Dharma is about connection with things, or more about just awareness of them?

 

[Christian Sonic Fan]

Thanks, that’s interesting. Dharma is about connection with things, or more about just awareness of them?

I think it's both honestly. I'm not quite sure. From what I gather, it's the full realization of something.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If you are interested in dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism, look up Thomas Merton and DT Suzuki. With monasticism and deep prayer, much of the same ideas and imagery may be employed. There are parallels, but also sincere differences.

Notably, Buddhist ideas of Self is that it is Sunyata, which is often translated as Void. The idea is that the Self doesn't really exist, as at heart there is only the One True Buddha, a sort of Monism. So by attaining enlightenment, the Self dissipates into the unity of Non-Duality, where there is both Self and Not-Self. The Self is largely a confusion of the Khandas, or heaps of desire, that flows forth - constantly changing like a river, and like a river a sort of constant, but the water is different the whole time.

In Mahayana Buddhism, the ultimate end is to help all beings attain enlightenment, and as the Self can only differentiate itself from the One True Buddha Nature by use of a subdividing mind, when that happens, all will simply be the Monistic One in an ultimate state of non-duality - so the self and all bodhisattva will cease to exist. Therevada is a bit different.

Also, Buddhism talks a lot about compassion, but Buddhist compassion is not the Christian variety. Buddhism teaches that desire and attachment leads to suffering, so the goal is to lead all to have no desires tying them here. So Buddhist compassion for suffering also entails compassion for 'suffering' that we would not see as such - such as devotion to a spouse, or love of your children - as ultimately that will pass away and result in pain. This is why Buddhism can excuse Gautama abandoning his wife and child. A noted difference in concept exists between what we mean.

Another good point, is that the One True Buddha is often equated to God by many - but it is more an monistic unity, than a personal relationship. So Buddhists will say things like the love of Oya-sama or the Pure Land of Amidha, that sound Christianesque, but read deeper and the underlying worldview is quite different. A good way to see this is to read up a bit about Nagarjuna at Nalanda, which is where much Mahajana comes from. Keep in mind that there are quite marked differences between the three schools of Buddhism, the three turnings of the wheel of the Dharma of Mahayana, Theravada and Vajrayana, so I am generalising quite a bit.

I read a bit about Buddhism a few years ago, back when trying not to be a Christian, and while I have a lot of sympathy for its monism and the almost Stoic Apatheia in much Mahayana, I could never shake the feeling that Attachment is essentially Good. That loving something is Good, even if temporary and may result in pain. In my mind, the failure of Buddhism in the West in Greco-Roman times goes back to the bedrock of Plato, that essentially optimistic idea of Love from the Symposium that also played such a part in Christianity. Many of the similarities are false friends, only superficially compatible, and I think the modern cachet of Buddhism in the West is mostly the same type of superficial orientalism of Beatles visiting an Indian Guru. When the West falls, maybe things will change, but we are too different culturally for much synthesis.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Having studied Buddhism as part of my degree in Phenomenology of Religion and having journeyed spiritually in that direction for a time, I have to say that it is a thoroughly demonic religion. Any 'parallels' are purely academic and in no way give authenticity to such a depraved belief system.

Paul made it quite clear that pagan religions are demonic and I fully agree.

The idea of multiple paths to the truth is totally deceptive.

The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob does not tolerate idolatry as we see from His very first commandment. His Way alone is righteous and His Son, Jesus, perfectly embodies eternal truth.

I well remember returning to my Christian roots was like being rescued from having a one way ticket to the wrong event.

 

[dlamberth]

Hello,

I'm curious about what the points of similarity are between Christianity and Buddhism. Anyone here who is a convert from Christianity to Buddhism, or just very familiar with both, who can highlight anything the two religions have in common?

I'm also curious about the sense of self in Buddhism. When I first read about it, a long time ago, I took the attainment of nirvana to mean a kind of dissolution of self. I spoke with a Thai Buddhist about this idea more recently, and the idea is different to what I had thought but she found it difficult to express it exactly, something like an ultimate self-actualisation, but not that exactly either. I wondered if it is similar or very different to the the 'new name' - which I take to be something like a new identity, or a refining of an existing identity, in revelation 2:17 ( I will also give him a white stone, on which is written a new name that nobody knows except the one receiving it) - or if the concept is very different to that.

Thanks.

A wonderful read coming from a Mystic's perspective that I recommend is "The Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion" by William Johnston. Johnston compares and contrasts Eastern Spirituality and the Christian experience as the reader is taken through the stages of the mystical experiences. Johnston is a Irish born Jesuit who spent years also practicing Zen in Japan..

 

[ananda]

Hello,

I'm curious about what the points of similarity are between Christianity and Buddhism. Anyone here who is a convert from Christianity to Buddhism, or just very familiar with both, who can highlight anything the two religions have in common?

Yes, I was a convert from Christianity (Protestant/Evangelical) to Buddhism (early/Theravada, Thai Forest Tradition). I was a Christian for about 3 decades, and I served as a teacher in the church for both children (Sunday-school) and adults (I led apologetics classes).

Intrinsically, I don't think they have anything fundamental in common. Their end-goals and the way to reach those end-goals are fundamentally different, although there are a (very) few overlapping doctrines, e.g. "do unto others ...".

I'm also curious about the sense of self in Buddhism. When I first read about it, a long time ago, I took the attainment of nirvana to mean a kind of dissolution of self. I spoke with a Thai Buddhist about this idea more recently, and the idea is different to what I had thought but she found it difficult to express it exactly, something like an ultimate self-actualisation, but not that exactly either. I wondered if it is similar or very different to the the 'new name' - which I take to be something like a new identity, or a refining of an existing identity, in revelation 2:17 ( I will also give him a white stone, on which is written a new name that nobody knows except the one receiving it) - or if the concept is very different to that.

Thanks.

It is quite different.

The concept of anatta in early Buddhism refers to not-self or non-self, not no-self. There are important differences between the former and the latter: the former refers to a state of mind (e.g. not identifying with things as a persistent "self"), whereas the latter refers to a statement of belief or faith (e.g. "I know there is no self").

The "new name" of Rev 2:17 looks like it refers to the idea that a Christian will be given a new identity, but anatta refers to non-identification. Rev 2:17 seems clear with what it's saying (in a literal sense); if it is however reinterpreted symbolically or mythically, it can potentially mean anything and loses any significance, IMO.

 

[ananda]

Dharma is about connection with things, or more about just awareness of them?

"Dhamma" in general refers to the fixed Laws governing samsaric existence, and the teachings associated with and in harmony with those Laws.

As Buddhists, we esteem Dhamma because it is inherently directly and personally apparent and observable by all individuals by its nature, without the need for blind faith.

 

[Tom 1]

Yes, I was a convert from Christianity (Protestant/Evangelical) to Buddhism (early/Theravada, Thai Forest Tradition). I was a Christian for about 3 decades, and I served as a teacher in the church for both children (Sunday-school) and adults (I led apologetics classes).

Intrinsically, I don't think they have anything fundamental in common. Their end-goals and the way to reach those end-goals are fundamentally different, although there are a (very) few overlapping doctrines, e.g. "do unto others ...".

It is quite different.

The concept of anatta in early Buddhism refers to not-self or non-self, not no-self. There are important differences between the former and the latter: the former refers to a state of mind (e.g. not identifying with things as a persistent "self"), whereas the latter refers to a statement of belief or faith (e.g. "I know there is no self").

The "new name" of Rev 2:17 looks like it refers to the idea that a Christian will be given a new identity, but anatta refers to non-identification. Rev 2:17 seems clear with what it's saying (in a literal sense); if it is however reinterpreted symbolically or mythically, it can potentially mean anything and loses any significance, IMO.

As in there is a self but not one that is definable in terms of transitory experiences?

 

[ananda]

As in there is a self but not one that is definable in terms of transitory experiences?

Assuming you are referring to the idea of an enduring self ... Since Buddhism's ultimate end-goal is nibbana - the cessation of suffering/discontentment (a phenomenological state of experience) - the question of the existence of an enduring self (a cosmological question) is generally put aside. The two concepts span two different spheres of existence.

1. If there is an enduring self, then it is ultimately impossible to achieve nibbana. An enduring self inherently implies that it is not and cannot be subject to change - therefore the experience of suffering cannot be changed, which also defeats the purpose of training. This leads to the false teaching of eternalism (in Buddhist terms).
2. If there is no enduring self, then it leads to the idea that there is nothing to train, which also means that our experience of suffering cannot be changed. This leads to the opposite false teaching of annihilationism, also in Buddhist terms.

Ref: SN 44:10 (Ananda Sutta)

Buddhist teaching points out dependent origination as a third option instead. In summary, dependent origination essentially refers to the process of cause (kamma) and effect (vipaka) - the middle way.

There is a conventional "self" which we all experience, but all components (physical, mental, emotional, consciousness) of that conventional self is seen and understood as constantly undergoing change (cause & effect) at every moment. In this respect, self-training (in the Noble Eightfold Path) is understood as effective towards change, growth, and the cessation of suffering, and is ennobling and empowering.

 

[Andrewn]

"Dhamma" in general refers to the fixed Laws governing samsaric existence, and the teachings associated with and in harmony with those Laws.

As Buddhists, we esteem Dhamma because it is inherently directly and personally apparent and observable by all individuals by its nature, without the need for blind faith.

Would you comment further on your understanding of Dhamma, especially in the aspect of it being inherently directly and personally apparent and observable by all individuals by its nature, without the need for blind faith?

 

[ananda]

Would you comment further on your understanding of Dhamma, especially in the aspect of it being inherently directly and personally apparent and observable by all individuals by its nature, without the need for blind faith?

Is it not apparent that the Laws governing samsaric existence, such as the Law of Cause & Effect (aka Kamma), are personally observable & does not require blind faith?

 

[Andrewn]

Is it not apparent that the Laws governing samsaric existence, such as the Law of Cause & Effect (aka Kamma), are personally observable & does not require blind faith?

I wasn't really asking about kamma. I was asking about Dhamma. You claimed that Dhamma "is inherently directly and personally apparent and observable by all individuals by its nature, without the need for blind faith." How so?

 

[ananda]

I wasn't really asking about kamma. I was asking about Dhamma. You claimed that Dhamma "is inherently directly and personally apparent and observable by all individuals by its nature, without the need for blind faith." How so?

The Dhamma, the Laws that govern the natural order of all things, directly affects us in every moment of every day. The process of growth and maturity is essentially the way we, as individuals, learn to navigate and harness these laws in our own lives.

Buddhism teaches us to go meta with these laws - to cultivate awareness of them to understand our place in life and in relation to our summum-bonum in life in order to achieve the latter - rather than just being subject to those laws like unperceiving animals.

No faith is needed, because we can each observe these laws for ourselves, if we care to look.

 

[Andrewn]

The Dhamma, the Laws that govern the natural order of all things, directly affects us in every moment of every day. The process of growth and maturity is essentially the way we, as individuals, learn to navigate and harness these laws in our own lives.

Buddhism teaches us to go meta with these laws - to cultivate awareness of them to understand our place in life and in relation to our summum-bonum in life in order to achieve the latter - rather than just being subject to those laws like unperceiving animals.

No faith is needed, because we can each observe these laws for ourselves, if we care to look.

Sounds like the same thing Apostle Paul meant in the following:

Rom 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them—for God has shown it to them. 20 His invisible attributes—His eternal power and His divine nature—have been clearly seen ever since the creation of the world, being understood through the things that have been made. So people are without excuse—

I think Catholics would call to this as the Book of Nature. I have no doubt dhamma is referred to in other passages as well.

 

[ananda]

Sounds like the same thing Apostle Paul meant in the following:

Rom 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them—for God has shown it to them. 20 His invisible attributes—His eternal power and His divine nature—have been clearly seen ever since the creation of the world, being understood through the things that have been made. So people are without excuse—

I think Catholics would call to this as the Book of Nature. I have no doubt dhamma is referred to in other passages as well.

From a Buddhist perspective, we would stop at the observable Laws. We perceive the Laws governing the natural order, and we do not engage in unobservable speculation as to any "who" or "what" might or might not be beyond or behind that.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

From a Buddhist perspective, we would stop at the observable Laws. We perceive the Laws governing the natural order, and we do not engage in unobservable speculation as to any "who" or "what" might or might not be beyond or behind that.

This has to do with what we had been discussing in the other thread, about Suffering. From my perspective, Buddhism is just engaging in speculation. A subjective experience is taken, suffering, and a dialectic crafted to account for it and offered as its solution. This is not observable in any Western sense of the term, but a metaphysical programme proffered. This is more clear in Mahayana though, and I know you say you follow some reconstructed 'Early Buddhism' Theravada-esque way. The Four Noble Truths seem to me to be exactly a speculative programme; and one that you can't experience yourself to check in any meaningful way, without first acquiescing to them. For example, suffering is a temporary state in my mind, which I can salve, not an intrinsic characteristic of existence itself. To see it as the latter, requires existentialist speculation, not fact.

 

[ananda]

This has to do with what we had been discussing in the other thread, about Suffering. From my perspective, Buddhism is just engaging in speculation. A subjective experience is taken, suffering, and a dialectic crafted to account for it and offered as its solution. This is not observable in any Western sense of the term, but a metaphysical programme proffered. This is more clear in Mahayana though, and I know you say you follow some reconstructed 'Early Buddhism' Theravada-esque way. The Four Noble Truths seem to me to be exactly a speculative programme; and one that you can't experience yourself to check in any meaningful way, without first acquiescing to them. For example, suffering is a temporary state in my mind, which I can salve, not an intrinsic characteristic of existence itself. To see it as the latter, requires existentialist speculation, not fact.

What is the Western obsession with needing to objectively measure things that are inherently subjective, besides to provide a capacity to control others and to measure for the sake of profit? If it can't be measured, a price tag can't be attached to it.

I don't disagree that the Four Noble Truths are indeed subjective, but that's the point - phenomenological existence is the deepest layer of reality we can directly & personally experience. Suffering is intrinsic to this reality because of non-permanence ... we obviously desire to avoid things we dislike, and, even things we like and work to salve some degree of suffering are themselves non-permanent and will eventually go away, no matter how much we desire them to remain, which also makes them an (eventual) source of suffering. It appears to be a fact in my mind.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What is the Western obsession with needing to objectively measure things that are inherently subjective, besides to provide a capacity to control others and to measure for the sake of profit? If it can't be measured, a price tag can't be attached to it.

The West only developed ideas of Objectivity and Subjectivity in the high mediaeval period (and even then, the terms switched their meaning around under the influence of Empiricism). Because of Aristotle's influence, we came to think that the final thing we perceive is the most 'knowable', hence the stress on sense-data. In the East from the Upanishads, akin in some ways to Plato, the act of perception was seen as the most 'knowable'. It is because the West came to see Reason itself as a semi-divine faculty, without this attempt to get behind it into some non-duality state.

Anyway, Science is the half-brother of Magic, as CS Lewis said. Both are about finding pragmatic ways to control and influence the world, though Science came to assume the mantle of the disinterested philosopher. We measure to understand, because we think there is something Objective that we can attempt to glean intersubjectively. It is the shadow of Positivism that remains, and with the growth of post-positivist and post-modernism, the philosopher cloak is becoming threadbare. As we reduce more of the world to what we can measure, that reduction joins the realm of Nature, of what we can control. Those measuring thus gain more control over what is measured, until one day they have measured themselves too, and 'Abolished Man'.