Jesus: a zen buddist?

[jezic]

Buddhist practice would deal with that stuff i think.

The philosophy, at least the parts that i have been exposed to, is more about trying to live simpler.

There is some stuff that seems to be different, but i don't know it. I should have clarified that.

[Socrates]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 29 2005, 02:16 PM']Buddhist practice would deal with that stuff i think.

The philosophy, at least the parts that i have been exposed to, is more about trying to live simpler.

There is some stuff that seems to be different, but i don't know it. I should have clarified that.
[right][snapback]627629[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Buddhism contains religious/philosophical beliefs contrary to Christianity. It is a religion/beleif system, not just a guide to simple living.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 29 2005, 02:12 PM'][i]the Jesus Sutras!?!?[/i]

...what do they believe about Christ?
[right][snapback]627625[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The primitive/early church sent missionaries to the Far East. Tradition holds that St. Thomas the Apostle travelled to India. After the Nestorian Heresy, the Christians in China we cut off from the orthodox catholic church, and only rarely came in contact with Nestorian or Eastern Patriarchs.

The result of this inadvertant isolation was the fact that the Church in China was not protected from the infiltration of heresy.

The "Jesus Sutras" are a number of texts from the Taoist Christian Church, called in China the "Religion of Light" or, more fully, the "Da Qin Light Religion." In these texts, the Christ story is reinterpreted and applied to a Taoist/Buddhist worldview.

Thus, Christ comes not to save from sin, but to free from the bondage of karma and the wheel of rebirth. Moreover, the doctrine of Original Sin is, for the most part, cut out, or at the very least extremely marginalized, and the Taoist notion of "original nature" is adopted. Moreover, the Crucifixion and Resurrection is almost never talked about, with only a light emphasis placed on the Incarnation and the Ascension. Finally, the teachings attributed to Christ are a mix of Christian Scripture, Taoist philosophy (most notably from the Tao Te Ching and the I Ching), and the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama.

[Semperviva]

Interesting...the St. Thomas Christians? they diden't succumb to the Nestorian heresy did they? was that just China..

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 29 2005, 02:13 PM']I'm really not an expert on Buddhism or Hinduism.  But don't they both teach that existance as we know it is an illusion from which we must escape to become enlightened, and that Nirvana is a destruction of individuality?

In any case, it seems that their fundamental idea of the nature of reality is quite different from the Christian idea.  Perhaps you could clarify.
[right][snapback]627626[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not really, the world and everything in it is very real in Buddhist/Taoist thought. It is the self that is the illusion. Creation is the actionless action, or the [i]wu wei[/i], of the Tao. Desire for anything that has been created, however, leads to suffering, because desire leads to the belief that there is an "I" who desires. Taoism and Buddhism teach that there is no "I" but rather, "you" and "I" are nothing more than the composite of the Five Aggregates and the [i]qi[/i], or breath, which is life energy. These Five Aggregates change each moment, and so there is no "you" which exists. At death the Five Aggregates seperate, and the kharma, or the lasting effect of action upon the Five Aggregates, passes on to another composite of the Five Aggregates.

Ultimately, peace can only be found in the denial of all desire, including the desire for peace (this is linked to [i]wu wei[/i]), which breaks the kharmic cycle, or the wheel of rebirth - For no action means no desire, and no desire means no kharma. Only when one is without kharma is he free from suffering and the illusion of self.

[Melchisedec]

One huge difference between Buddhism and Christianity is the issue on authority. Christians feel there must be some universal authority such as God to provide things like morals. Objective morality. Now Buddhist, do not recognize a God per se, nor do they feel that morality stems from an objective source. They are more in line with Socrates, 'know the good, do the good". Shayamuni(The Buddha) did not claim to come from some sort of higher authority or anything like that. In fact, he claimed to be just a normal person who found a way to end suffering. The philosophical underpinnings of Buddhism is very practical in nature. Buddhism changes that is part of the reason why we have all sorts of Buddhism due to its migration out of india and its ease of blending in with native beliefs. Lastly, in regards to 'no self'. Essentially Buddhist believe that "I" is a designation for consciousness, perception, all your senses. "I" does not exist, it is purely a way to identify all of these things put together. You often hear of the buddhist chariot analogy. What is a chariot? Is it the wheels, is it the spokes, is it the seats, or the frame. The answer is that the chariot are all of these things together. Chariot is simply a designation for the combined parts. The Buddhist see the mind such as this. Not active belief in an afterlife aswell. The mind is essential related to the soul but the concepts are not exactly the same. You can definitely find parrallels between Christianity and Buddhism, but ultimately there is a vast differnece between the two.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Most of what you say above is correct. The only thing that I would make a note regarding is the following:

[quote]Shayamuni(The Buddha) did not claim to come from some sort of higher authority or anything like that. In fact, he claimed to be just a normal person who found a way to end suffering.[/quote]

Mayahana Buddhism maintains that the Buddha was indeed a deity and really did teach with Divine Authority, and most Buddhist statuary implicitly recognizes this authority through the positioning of the Buddha's hands, most especially with regards to the statues of the Present Buddha, or Buddha of the Present.

[Apotheoun]

Mahayana Buddhism also has "saints," that is, individuals who have stopped short of enlightenment in order to help others achieve it. They are called Bodhisattvas .

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 30 2005, 09:50 AM']Most of what you say above is correct. The only thing that I would make a note regarding is the following:
Mayahana Buddhism maintains that the Buddha was indeed a deity and really did teach with Divine Authority, and most Buddhist statuary implicitly recognizes this authority through the positioning of the Buddha's hands, most especially with regards to the statues of the Present Buddha, or Buddha of the Present.
[right][snapback]628179[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I know exactly what your talking about. I believe its right before his enlightenment, he points to the ground and the earth trembles. It was a sign of the earth recognizing him. Or you could interepet that as the earth essentially being an authority that recognizes the Buddha. But I believe this is the only instance of the earth recognizing the Buddha. You find that the Buddha is pointing down towards the earth in authentic statues. I'd also like to add that I'm comming purely from a Theravada perspective.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 30 2005, 10:00 AM']I know exactly what your talking about. I believe its right before his enlightenment, he points to the ground and the earth trembles. It was a sign of the earth recognizing him. Or you could interepet that as the earth essentially being an authority that recognizes the Buddha.  But I believe this is the only instance of the earth recognizing the Buddha. You find that the Buddha is pointing down towards the earth in authentic statues. I'd also like to add that I'm comming purely from a Theravada perspective.
[right][snapback]628189[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Correct, that is the particular part scene being referenced, though much more symbolism has been added on in the centuries.

[Mikhail]

I take [i]exception[/i] to a lot of things said here.

1. I keep seeing people saying things like
Buddhaist/Taoism. This is completely wrong. The two
things are mutually exclusive. Taoism is philosophy
and there is nothing religious about it. Buddhaism is
a religion however, as well as a philosophy.

2. People seem to think that Taoism post-dated Christ. In reality, the legendary Lao Tzu lived centuries before Christ and Taoist became a respected way of life.

3. I don't see how Taoism in any way contradicts Christianity. Abhore violence, don't go to extremes, etc, etc. Using metaphors and parables to explain a way of life. Sounds a lot like Christianity to me. I don't see how the verse you quoted contradicted Christianity in any way. Please could you be more specific.

4. What translation were you quoting there? There are literally hundreds of translations of the Tao Te Ching out there, and many are watered down and changed to fit the translator's personal agenda. Might I suggest you read the translation by Stephen Addiss, as I have found it to be the best. Also, if you're interested, you can use the Definitive translation to attempt to translate it yourself, as I am.

5. As for Buddhaism, it is a religion and modern Buddhaists do consider the Buddha a diety. However, the philosophy of the Buddha, who also predated Christ, was not religious and one can glean much good from studying it. Of course, as with any religion that isn't Christian, there are doctrines in it that are heretical and false.

6. I see enlightenment as similar to reaching sainthood. Read the philosophy of St. Francis. It's almost identical to that of the Buddha. Thankfully, St Francis had the truth of God readily available to him and was able to apply it to his newfound enlightenment. The Buddha didn't even know God existed. Neither did Lao Tzu for that matter.

I suggest a lot of you study these subjects a lot deeper before making hasty statements and jumping to conclusions on Eastern philosophy and religions.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]1. I keep seeing people saying things like
Buddhaist/Taoism. This is completely wrong. The two
things are mutually exclusive. Taoism is philosophy
and there is nothing religious about it. Buddhaism is
a religion however, as well as a philosophy.[/quote]

You are clearly not familiar with history, or with local cultural Taoism in China. To view Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism as wholly and totally seperate entities is a Western-revisionist analysis that is not accurate in any sense of the word.

Moreover, you must have an extremely narrow, almost naive, view of what constitutes religion if you do not see Chinese Taoism as a religion. It certainly is not monotheism in a western sense of the world, but let us look at it seriously: It identifies a cosmological first principle that is not knowable in its essence and from which all natural and ethical laws derive, and works to orient human acts so as to be in accord with this principle. That is, for all sakes and purposes, a religion.

Moreover, when local cultural Taoism is looked at without the western-revisionist lense, we see that the vast majority of Taoist writings and believers have testified to belief in spirits. Indeed, a number of Taoist temples in China are built in such a way as to prevent spirits from entering, via the positioning of walls and bridges.

[quote]People seem to think that Taoism post-dated Christ. In reality, the legendary Lao Tzu lived centuries before Christ and Taoist became a respected way of life.[/quote]

I don't know who you are referencing here, but it most certainly is not me.

[quote]I don't see how Taoism in any way contradicts Christianity. Abhore violence, don't go to extremes, etc, etc. Using metaphors and parables to explain a way of life. Sounds a lot like Christianity to me. I don't see how the verse you quoted contradicted Christianity in any way. Please could you be more specific.[/quote]

Taoism and Christianity conflict on a number of different ways. The teaching on duality which I quoted previously from the [i]Tao Te Ching[/i] is the beginning of the doctrine of the harmony of opposites. While I am sure you are familiar with the doctrine, the basic tenant is that peace exists in the perfect balancing of opposites, light and darkness, being and nothingness, good and evil. With the one comes the opposite, and it belongs to the Way to find balance and peace. This is actionless-action.

However, this teaching is diametrically oppossed to Christianity, for Christianity has always maintained that evil and good are [i]not[/i] two opposing forces, and that peace cannot be found in balancing the two. Moreover, Good can exist without any evil whatsoever - a position untenable to the Taoist cosmological perspective.

[quote]What translation were you quoting there?[/quote]

I am using the 1955 translation by Raymond B. Blakney. If you find errors in my translation which contradict the points that I have made previously, please inform me. If not, there is no need to bicker about whose translation is being used.

[quote]As for Buddhaism, it is a religion and modern Buddhaists do consider the Buddha a diety. However, the philosophy of the Buddha, who also predated Christ, was not religious and one can glean much good from studying it. Of course, as with any religion that isn't Christian, there are doctrines in it that are heretical and false.[/quote]

This takes absolutely no exception to any of the things which I have said, and I agree entirely with it, as you can tell if you re-read my posts.

[quote]I see enlightenment as similar to reaching sainthood.[/quote]

While I cannot change your personal beliefs, the only thing I can hope to do is point out where you may be in error here.

Superficially, the two may seem similar, however, the core focus of each is radically different. In Sainthood, the Christian sees the total completion and perfection of the human person as an individual in the process of [i]theosis[/i]. In enlightenment, a Taoist sees the total abandonment of individual personhood, to the point of complete lack of self.

The realization of the doctrine of no-self in enlightenment is a fundamentally different concept from the selflessness espoused by Christianity, and especially catholicism.

[quote]I suggest a lot of you study these subjects a lot deeper before making hasty statements and jumping to conclusions on Eastern philosophy and religions.[/quote]

We can all see the wisdom in this comment.

Edited July 1, 2005 by JeffCR07

[Antonius]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 30 2005, 09:22 AM']They are more in line with Socrates, 'know the good, do the good". ... You often hear of the buddhist chariot analogy. What is a chariot? Is it the wheels, is it the spokes, is it the seats, or the frame. The answer is that the chariot are all of these things together. Chariot is simply a designation for the combined parts.[right][snapback]628166[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am in no way whatsoever any sort of expert or even amateur philosopher or student of philosophy. However, I had some basic classes.

Socrates, even though he says, "Know the good, do the good," wasn't he more objective in his belief in truth? I mean, he spent time questioning people as to why and wanting them to define terms and give reasons, and he would bring other reasons up against them. He didn't ask them to define for themselves reality. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but it seems to me that all his questioning and dialectic was a search for two people to get at the truth, whatever it ends up being, it [i]would [/i]make sense. Now, I honestly do think that I may be simplifying Soc, and/or confusing him with Plato, but Plato [i]is [/i]to Socrates what Matt, Mark, Luke, and John are to Jesus.

The second question I have regards the chariot illustration. For some reason, I remember Plato or Aristotle or one of the other Pre-Soccratics, or even Socrates himself using a similar metephor. It was a wagon or a carriage I think. But basically, the wagon is not just the wheels or the axel, but you need them all working together in the right place for it to be a wagon. Am I just fooling myself? Does anyone else remember something in the Dialogues or something? Surely someone who is much more schooled in philosophy can correct me.

In light of these two points, I would agree with some of those who remarked earlier that the "similarities" between the Buddha and Christ are usually going to be surface-deep and vague, that every religion has in common. The similarities seem to be something different, like we need a different word for them.

Also, it has been my experience that usually when people say that there are similarities, they are over-simplifying the two religions/philosophies (whatever we'll call them...) because of their underlying purpose to merge or weaken both of them, for whatever reason. Need I say that this is a "modernist" or "post-modernist" tendency?

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm sure I'm missing something. If we cannot talk with each other, we will inevitably kill each other. God bless!

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Antonius' date='Jun 30 2005, 09:32 PM']I am in no way whatsoever any sort of expert or even amateur philosopher or student of philosophy.  However, I had some basic classes.

Socrates, even though he says, "Know the good, do the good," wasn't he more objective in his belief in truth?  I mean, he spent time questioning people as to why and wanting them to define terms and give reasons, and he would bring other reasons up against them.  He didn't ask them to define for themselves reality.  Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but it seems to me that all his questioning and dialectic was a search for two people to get at the truth, whatever it ends up being, it [i]would [/i]make sense.  Now, I honestly do think that I may be simplifying Soc, and/or confusing him with Plato, but Plato [i]is [/i]to Socrates what Matt, Mark, Luke, and John are to Jesus. 
[/quote]

To understand Socrates you have to really understand what gave birth to his philosophies. At the time, the Sophist had made everyone jaded, with an almost nihilistic point of view. So Socrates comes into to try to sway philosophy from this narrow view point. He definitely believed in an objective truth to existence. Now in regards to moral truths, Socrates believed in using logic and reason as opposed to some morality defined by religious doctrine. Todangst (a philosopher I know) wrote this in regards to Socrates which I think explains it excellently:

[i]Socrates did have his own religious faith. He believed in one god, conceived as an all-good, prime mover. However, the religion of Socrates was one born of logic and philosophy, and not a dogmatic theology.

Instead, Socrates hoped to build a system of morality (to replace the one he tore to bits by denying the multi god system) that was independent of religious doctrine. He saw religion as merely a justification for moral systems that were created by men - divine authorities to stand in the place of human authorities that would otherwise be questioned. So he wanted to create a system based on logic and reason. In order to do so, Socrates defined "good" to mean "intelligent" and "virtue" to be wise.

If a man could only know himself and know the good, he would do the good. Socrates put forth that all that we called sin was really just error, or poor choice. Therefore an intelligent man, who made wise choices would be virtuous and good. [/i]

The buddhist sees morality as something that can be rationalized, derived from facts and personal experience.

[i]"If you wish to do a certain action, first reflect whether the action is likely to harm yourself or others or both. If the action is likely to cause suffering, refrain from doing it."

"If the action is likely to cause happiness and no harm can arise from such a deed, do it again and again."[/i]


[quote]The second  question I have regards the chariot illustration.  For some reason, I remember Plato or Aristotle or one of the other Pre-Soccratics, or even Socrates himself using a similar metephor.  It was a wagon or a carriage I think.  But basically, the wagon is not just the wheels or the axel, but you need them all working together in the right place for it to be a wagon.  Am I just fooling myself?  Does anyone else remember something in the Dialogues or something?  Surely someone who is much more schooled in philosophy can correct me.
[/quote]

I'm not sure myself.

[quote]Please, correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm sure I'm missing something.  If we cannot talk with each other, we will inevitably kill each other.    God bless!
[right][snapback]629064[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Indeed , I love dialogue

[Mikhail]

Please know that I haven't given up on this in any way. I just don't have the time to come up with a detailed response that is needed to address your points. Also, I'd be interested in learning how you know or think you know about Far Eastern philosophies. Do you study them?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jul 2 2005, 08:18 PM']Please know that I haven't given up on this in any way. I just don't have the time to come up with a detailed response that is needed to address your points. Also, I'd be interested in learning how you know or think you know about Far Eastern philosophies. Do you study them?
[right][snapback]630279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Simply a past time of mine. I am a philosophy/religion double major in school, and I dont think enough academic thought has been put to eastern philosophy or religion. Everyone seems to think that they are simply two different, irreconcilable worlds. While I see differences, I dont view them as completely seperate.

To that end, I just read whatever I can get my hands on. Personally I prefer Taoism to Buddhism and Confucianism, probably because I have read more about it than the others.

Now I have never claimed to be a scholar on any of these points, but until I am shown how my analysis is incorrect, I will stick to it. If you do wish to respond or take issue with the above, I would love to discuss, as I am always interested in learning more, I simply ask that you enter the discussion with charity.

In Christ,

Jeff

[infinitelord1]

I went to a catholic school in ft. worth and in this catechism class i had we learned that hinduism was the closest religion in the world to catholism.

[Mikhail]

Hmmmmm....that really tells you something about Catholicism, doesn't it. :wink:

(sorry, I couldn't resist)

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jul 3 2005, 01:52 AM']I went to a catholic school in ft. worth and in this catechism class i had we learned that hinduism was the closest religion in the world to catholism.
[right][snapback]630481[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This is simply wrong. Perhaps your professor was speaking in hyperboly. Eastern Orthodox is the closest to Catholicism.

[Socrates]

Hinduism is actually one of the religions farthest from Catholicism. Hinduism denies the objective reality of the world, and of individual persons. My Catholic History professor at college was convinced that Hinduism is a Satanically influenced religion.

Edited July 3, 2005 by Socrates