Jesus: a zen buddist?

[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

[Socrates]

[ignore - accidental double post]

Edited July 3, 2005 by Socrates