Buddhism, thoughts?

[DaisyDeadhead]

Okay, I will give it a shot... but please understand, Buddhism is qualitatively different in that it does not propose to have all the "answers" as Christianity does. You remember that Socrates only realized he was the smartest guy around, when he realized he knew nothing...and the difference between him and everybody else was that they seemed to think they knew everything and he knew he didn't.

Just so.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 11:20 AM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  I think Daisy would be better to response to set-free. I'm not that knowledgeable to answer their post in my current state of mine, but I still think that you are conflating Enlightenment with a reward for good behavior.

In a way tho, don't Christians behave because god tells us to? Buddhism says we should behave because it's the right thing to do.

This is my opinion : I think that wanting to overcome suffering or imperfection and it's effects it by correcting "negative" behavior, thoughts, or energy even if it's for the good of others you're still on the path to a relative morality.

Christianity is also "relative" when it suits you.

i.e. "thou shalt not kill" but war, capital punishment, self-defense etc are regarded as acceptable. Obviously, the rules are bent (by you and/or God) in certain contexts. That is what moral relativism IS. And this is true for all Christian rules. The reason you don't think you also have moral relativity is that you know all the reasons for the bent-rules and these reasons "make sense" to you... but that doesn't change the fact that your religious rules are also morally relative.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  It's no matter whether you think you are doing it for enlightenment or to move beyond the constraints of self. There's a cause for suffering,

What is the cause?

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  there is a reason this world is imperfect

Why is it imperfect? Why are people harmed who never did anything to deserve it? Why are 5-year-old children locked in basements and sodomized for years?

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  and they are trying their own way to get away from it or rise above it with meditation.

There's that language, "rise above"--Christian language. That is not the goal.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  I don't think I'm confused about why a Buddhist would say they do what they do. I don't think I'm confusing Enlightenment, Nirvana or Karma with reward though it may look that way.

I just don't think anyone has a true self that is inherently good, except Jesus. So even thinking that somehow you're on the path to becoming an enlightened human acting out of pure motive is ludicrous.

Self is an illusion, in Tibetan Buddhism. In Zen and Theravada traditions, there is more of a Hindu-derived version of self (atman).

I initially did not want to get into this conversation because I didn't want to get into all the "denominational" (haha) differences, but I guess they are unavoidable at this point. So keep in mind, I am talking about the Tibetan school.

There is no over-riding "self"--there is personality, traits, preferences, abilities, emotions, brain, physical embodiment, incarnation... and these are the aggregates we call "self" in Western culture and religion. But we are not the same people we were even six months ago. Every cell in our body has been replaced. We do not think the same thoughts or even have the same opinions. We see a movie again, we say, ugh, how did I think that was any good? Or: wow, that was great, why did I not see this before?

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  But to even navigate towards an idea of "suffering" vs. "enlightened" how do we begin to distinguish between the two on an objective level without morality?

Since every sentient being suffers, that is simply a fact. No opinion is involved: fact. Life is suffering. For everything and everybody... that is why its the First Noble Truth.

Followers of some Buddhist schools (Theravada) seek not to return to the earth (samsara, reincarnation) and thus, the primary reason for their devotion is to seek to avoid future suffering. I think we can all agree we do not enjoy suffering and want to end it for ourselves, and these people have decided to do this.

Others (Mahayana) want to end the suffering of others, and seek to return to aid others in enlightenment.

But keep in mind, this is an old disagreement, just like the ones in Christianity over the nature of the Eucharist, baptism, Holy Spirit and so on.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  And where does morality come from? The problem here, for me, is that I'm supposed to think in a new paradigm to deal with Buddhism but Buddhist's are still hijacking the law of God written on all men's hearts to define good.

Substitute the word HARM for bad and NO HARM for good. All beings, even plants, seek to avoid harm (suffering results from harm) and seek that (food, sunshine, water) that brings no harm, but pleasure (flip side of suffering).

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  Even trying to do things unselfishly as opposed to selfishly creates a dichotomy. Why should it even matter in their system?

See above.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  Observation of what selfishness causes still does not explain why people are selfish.

Karma does.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  If people want to believe that deep down they are really good and can achieve pure enlightenment and do all things with free, unencumbered good intention then go ahead and try to be one with the Universe.

I think such a state takes thousands of lifetimes, and not just human lifetimes.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  I believe the Universe is a created thing and does not welcome people or other finite beings into itself in endless cycles to rebirth them into a new stage of being until they are enlightened.

I do. In fact, like "The Matrix" (which borrowed lots of ideas from Buddhism), I think what you call "the created world" is an illusion. We will not be free of the illusion until everyone is free of it. Not just a few of us.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  My prayer for my loved ones is to never find that kind of false peace in thinking they've achieved it.

Do you think the monks who immolated themselves during Vietnam, were at peace? False peace? Why do you think they did that?

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  Because to understand Jesus and what He is all about requires us to see ourselves in the real condition we are in.

And that means you have to believe "we" is a real concept, not just useful semantics, and I don't. See above, about no authentic "self"...

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  I don't really know you're background so I'm going to explain why as a Christian I might sometimes have moral behavior.

If I as a Christian manage to "behave" in a manner corresponding to God's perfectly righteous standard, which I desire to and fail at miserably, it's only because my hope is in Jesus.

And here we go...

There is nothing "moral" about condemning millions of people to burn miserably for all eternity. Nothing merciful or moral. To some of us, in fact, it sounds like a deification of mass murder. Thus, when you sensibly advance the idea of a vengeful hell and vengeful God (while claiming that he simultaneously loves us), it sounds (to us) warped, deranged, insane and we run in the opposite direction. Your God is not fair. He sentences millions of people to hell who never even learned to read the Bible, or who did not read it the way you say they should. This is not "moral" to us, and we do not cede the ground of morality to anyone who thinks there is anything remotely moral about that kind of arbitrary punishment, that one can gain heaven simply by an accident of birth or simply by "thinking the right thoughts." ("believe and you will be saved" = thinking the right thoughts, which is actually a gnostic idea, but I won't go there right now.)

Anyway, mass murder is horrific. There is nothing "righteous" about it. The fact that these ideas co-exist in your mind is outrageous to me, yet you continue to say your God is merciful and just.

Do you see the problem many of us have with that?

In short, we do not agree with your first premise. It is faulty.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  In baptism I was put into His death and am counted righteous by His work and sealed by the Holy Spirit; I'm anticipating final Redemption.

And the people who grew up speaking Mandarin and never learned this? Die and burn forever? What is fair about that?

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  In the New Testament Christians are generally given admonishments that start with "Therefore"... What precedes the "Therefore" is the Gospel, it's what sets me free to serve God and my neighbor without fear of whether my actions themselves are perfect enough, they are not meritorious.

So why do you bother? If works do not matter... except when they do.

The fundamentalists who are so concerned with ACTIONS and hem lengths and tattoos and drinking and gangsta rap and movies, et al, seem to believe PASSIONATELY in works. And then say works do not matter. I don't get that, never have. You lost me here, sorry.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  The Gospel makes me listen to the therefore with a new mind towards what's being said.

Your Gospel is not as old as the Buddhist scriptures. Is there a way you can convince me that your Bible is the book that has it right, without referring to itself? All the holy books of the world claim THEY are the right one, the Vedas famously claiming to be "God-breathed"--which is pretty categorical stuff. But seriously, since they all claim they have it right, they effectively cancel each other out.

How would you convince a Martian, perusing all of the world's Holy books, that yours is the right one? It's not the best written, most entertaining or even the oldest.

If you are Catholic, you can come back with, THE CHURCH CANONIZED IT and SAID SO, and yes, nice comeback, but you don't sound Catholic to me.

It is your faith that says it is, nothing more. Without your faith, there is nothing to bolster your Bible over the Quran, the Vedas or any other holy book. Especially since they all tend to repeat and say the same things: do not covet, or steal, or kill, be nice, leave the neighbor's wife and ox alone, and so on.

Again, this is one of those things you are taking for granted that is agreed upon, like the idea of an over-arching "self".

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  I'm not under condemnation, I'm free to confess my sins of not measuring up and know I'm forgiven.

But Martin Luther said we can't possibly know all of our sins. So you aren't free to confess them all, which is why he added "sins of commission and omission" to the liturgy.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  I Jn. 3-1-3. I am both sinner and saint in one sense.

Thus, you have just canceled it out. Your view of saint is what you think a saint is, what you have culturally been taught that it is. Same with "sinner"--for instance, you view a prostitute as a sinner, even if what she does is to feed her children. I simply can't subscribe to such a trite view. Life is more complex than that, and becomes more complex by the day, which is why people are leaving fundie churches right and left--since they only deal in this type of stark, black and white morality.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  My heart has gone from being estranged from God to becoming His Child.

I went in the opposite direction, LOL.

But seriously... why would *I* deserve to be his child and NOT someone like Gandhi?

That is what I mean about the unfairness.

Ye shall know them by their fruits, and Christianity's fruits leave a lot to be desired.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  My salvation is accomplished but I'm still stuck with sinful flesh for the time being and it has it's own desires contrary to the Spirit. So yes, I do desire to obey the LORD because He tells me to and because as a Christian with Faith in Christ it's the right way to honor Him. Without Faith it's impossible to please God. Outside of Faith trying following those teachings would be damning. I'm not scared of God in a dictatorial way but a reverential one, I'm His child and want to love others with the Love He has shown me through Jesus Christ. I'm not doing these things to win favor from God.

I do not want to be scared of anything, which again, is more suffering. I do not want to fear. There is nothing to fear.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  Buddhists say Nirvana is the end of Suffering?

Actually, the end of samsara is the end of suffering.

Nirvana, like the Resurrection, comes later.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  And enlightenment is understanding in an intuitive beyond knowledge of being interconnected with the Universe and everything?

Close enough.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  Jesus is my end to suffering,

But you just said you were afraid of him?

You think if you had cancer, you would not feel pain? Jesus will relieve you of your pain? Can I have that in writing, that if you ever need an operation, no painkillers or opiates for you?

You do not really believe this. Did you not "suffer" in childbirth? I sure did! You have never bonked your head on something and suffered? Did Jesus put an end to your earthly incarnation and nervous system? Did he prevent you from ever getting bonked on the head again? And if so, you are saying it didn't HURT?

I think it did, and Jesus did nothing to stop it.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  indeed the suffering of the world and John 1:3 says"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

Which is almost identical to what the Vedas (lots older than yours) said... who cribbed from whom?

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  As a Christian I guess you could say that since I am in Christ I have come to terms with all things, since He is the Creator. One day He will truly remake the heavens and Earth and give me a glorified, sinless body. I'll be able to know Jesus as He is. I Jn. 3-1-3. I look forward to being with people in that context, interacting with other Christians in this life we strive to act graciously and we still struggle. It's a wonderful hope.

But if Jesus put an end to your suffering, what is "struggle"? I thought you said he ended such things?

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  Are Buddhists more honorable in the eyes of man because they act the way they do for a more noble reason?

Since there is no self, none of that matters, and such thinking is part of the illusion we need to free ourselves from.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  A purer reason? Possibly, it's probably far less offensive than an imperfect person talking about a bloody cross.

Yes, it is, but that isn't the point.

(04-25-2012 05:26 PM)beensetfree Wrote:  At the end of the day Buddhism is a philosophical world view. I can see what's attractive about it. It goes well with the Po Mo subjectivism of the time.

Actually, I'd say the PoMos stole it from US. We were first.

But yes, it is similar. The main difference would be, they loooove their SELVES and have no intention of giving their selves up. Po Mo thinking is like a fashion accessory.

Giving up the self is a frightening thing to contemplate, but once done, very freeing.

Announcement:

This marks the first time I have had this conversation online, so I am new at this. If you pile on, pile on slow. LOL

[DaisyDeadhead]

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  Buddhism and Ayurveda are complimentary teaching.

Ayurveda comes from Hinduism, not Buddhism.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  sometimes there is an overlap between Buddhism and Hinduism.

Roughly speaking, VERY roughly speaking, but helpful to Westerners:

Hinduism is to Buddhism as Judaism is to Christianity. One relies on and is predicated on rules/history of the other, fulfills the prophecies of the other.

Hindus believe in the concept of "avatars" and Buddhists have pretty much jettisoned that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar

Buddha was initially seen as an Avatar of Vishnu (Jesus too, BTW) and many Hindus still believe this. The concept of the Trinity first came from Hinduism, and Vishnu (the Preserver) is the Second Person of their Trinity, as Jesus is in Christianity. Krishna was the last avatar of Vishnu, and many have noted the similar of his name to "Christ"... some people think its all the same story, especially due to the Trinity connection.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  Early Buddhism seems to be what you are discussing?

This is roughly what Theravada is. I would compare it (very roughly, again, no analogy is perfect!) to Catholicism. Lots of ritualistic stuff developed here. Mahayana would be Protestantism, the reform. Zen would be Charismatic or Pentecostal, major style difference.

Someone upthread said Tibetan was fundamentalist, and theologically, you might be right... Tibetans "act out" more... that is, make pilgrimages and try to fulfill the Eightfold Path. Also (as I said above) much more categorical about the concept of "no self"--this is possibly because Tibet was isolated longer than other Buddhist areas like China, Laos, Thailand, Burma and Japan. Also, extended persecution tends to make people "double down"--as you all know. (Oddly, communist persecution of Tibetan Buddhists, made them theologically much stronger.)

Like I said, rough analogies, but kind of helpful in explaining differences.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  Buddhism seeks to alleviate suffering, correct? All humans suffer.

Buddhism seeks to end samsara, which is the only way to achieve Nirvana.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  Buddhism's teaching in The Four Noble Truths is pointing to alleviating "suffering" through enlightenment.

But one person can not (usually) achieve this in one lifetime, which is why we've all had many.

Leading us to this conversation we are having this second.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  You have to wipe your mind clean of any Judeo Christian teaching to grasp Buddhist concepts

Oh, how well I know!

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  It requires a completely different worldview to accept.

Yes, I would certainly agree.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  Or if a person has abandoned belief in God entirely Buddhism offers an alternative for life without God.

It's highest idolatry for sinful man to think we can bring real peace apart from the Prince of Peace.

Siddhartha was a prince too... in fact, he was also the product of a virgin birth. He was also called "Prince of Peace" in his homeland, and all waaay before Jesus was born.

Just sayin.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  Let's say I decided to follow these teachings and still trust in Christ alone for my salvation. It's impossible, because ultimately I'd be trusting in my overcoming negative actions for assurance that I'm progressing. You can't syncretize Buddhism and Christianity, in Buddhism there's no need for Jesus' substitutionary work on the cross.

People like you are who convinced me I should leave the church, so I did. Is that what you intended?

Forcing people to choose might not be a good thing.

Buddhism doesn't force you to choose, by contrast.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  You would have to drain it all of all biblical meaning and come up with a new reason for why he died and arose from the dead.

The word is Bodhisattva. This is what Jesus was.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  I'd have to throw out the bible as God's Word and even my need for a Savior.

No, you don't HAVE to throw out anything that helps you, rather than harms you. That is the Buddhist way, and what several others have said in this thread.

Do what works. Do what you need to do. The trouble is, in the West, Christianity has instructed people not to trust themselves and their instincts and to think of themselves as irreparably tainted.

Dumping the whole "original sin" idea has been very difficult for me. The Vatican implants chips in your head, I think its in the holy water or something.

I worried that I would have to leave behind St Francis and Mary, to be Buddhist. I was assured that if they give me strength and example, I can keep them. In fact, it would be pretty spiritually-negative to get rid of such shining examples of people who sought to live outside their "selves" and live for the enlightenment of others.

They looked at "the big picture"!

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  Jesus claimed "I Am the Way, the TRUTH and the life." He either is or isn't, He's not an add-on to other philosophies and no philosophy can add to His work.

Since Buddhism came first, I think we know who added what to whom, but never mind.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  The bible explains the cause of suffering and the One who conquered the cause of it.

What is the cause of suffering? Where is the Bible verse that explains it rationally? Even Soren Kierkegaard admitted this was debatable when he wrote a whole book on it.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  It would be self delusion for me to try and syncretize Buddhist pragmatism and still worship Christ. Holding up my morality to God will damn me and prove I knew His standard all along but since He requires perfection I'd rather count Christ as my righteousness and grounds for reconciliation. Any good I do even as a Christian isn't where I find peace. As much as I've suffered at least I know the reason and the Hope beyond it. Also, to know the suffering I've caused has also been forgiven is incredibly comforting. I think God's love is evidenced by His warnings about sin's punishment. I don't want to do away with that warning, it shows He loves us enough to warn us.

Warn us we will burn? How is this love? I really cannot reconcile these two dogmas... eternal fire and love. They do not go together.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  In me there is no "good" true self only a sinner who needs redemption.

I found this a very self-destructive and self-hating theology, which is why it so often leads to hating The Other who is outside of it. i.e. If you have to toe the line, by God, then they should too, and you resent the unGodly types partying late into the night, and seek to Make. Them. Pay.

At least, that is how it sounds.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  I think you picked up on my contrasts between Buddhism and Christianity and it blurred the lines of what Deepak taught. It was my poor analysis that caused the confusion.

Chopra is Hindu and trained under Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. His views of Buddha are that he was an avatar of Vishnu, as explained above. This can sound "Buddhist" to people who aren't aware of the differences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  The Bible teaches about Hell, Deepak does not and did not in the videos.

Too horrifying, anti-human and disgusting, so good for him!

No more hell-talk.

Hell is an invention to make children sit still in class.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  He does not talk about being good as a means of achieving a good afterlife. His way and Buddhism's way of overcoming death is to view it as natural. The Bible explains it is unnatural.

Hm.

As Groucho Marx famously asked, "who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  Deepak doesn't contrast good and evil. Good is only a relative thing but what are you supposed to contrast suffering with exactly?

Pleasure.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  To alleviate suffering(bad) through enlightenment is becoming the true self which is inherently good, they think.

Again, that is a Hindu view. I don't believe there is an over-riding "self"--although I do have memories and a brain, which force me into the consciousness of "narrative"... and that is what we have. Narrative.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  I just pointed out that good must be ascertained somehow and it's ironic that we all have the same understanding of what it means.

No, since you think GOOD is something to do simply to avoid hell... and that hell is something a loving Father would allow his beloved children to experience. Thing is, I can't fathom such a "father"--no earthly fathers I know would subject their children to such a thing. But "Father in heaven" is supposedly better than earthly fathers?

Sounds worse to me. Further: Makes no logical sense.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  Jesus summed it up two ways. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself but he was distilling the Moral Law. Buddhism's teaching in The Four Noble Truths is pointing to alleviating "suffering" through enlightenment.

See above post for delineation of Theravada and Mahayana views on this.

Lutherans and Baptists also disagree.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  They don't use the word sin nor do they have it as a concept.

HA! I wish!

The word is kilesa, "defilements"--serves the same purpose: things to avoid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleshas_(Buddhism)

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  He describes life as "eternity" into which death is a part of it. To over come the fear of death is simple just realize that "life as an eternal flow that is neither loss nor gain only transformation." So that's reincarnation.

I agree, but there are many disciplines to learn to overcome fear of death and to learn "how to die", which is what the Bardo Thodol (Tibetan Book of the Dead) is.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  I guess if you've eliminated God's judgement, sin and your culpability these concepts will work for you.

Deepak equates us to God in the sense that when we experience true "love" as in doing things for unselfish reasons there we have experienced God or the essence of this "idea" of God that we have. He's drawing from the Four Immeasurables in this sense. He doesn't view God as a being, the totality of the universe and our interconnectedness is as close as Buddhism gets to that concept.

In Hinduism this is known as "The Godhead"--and I think he does a rather clumsy job of communicating this.

I once heard a Catholic priest in an AA talk do it better than him, even.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  Since Buddhism has at least two different schools

Four, and twenty major sects. Countless smaller ones, as in Christianity.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  All schools of buddhist thought do not have "gods" mentioned though some do and indeed they are not necessary and some would say are counter productive to consider.

Hello? Where did you get this stuff? I think before you start talking about Buddhist history, you need to read a few books about it. Just straight history, not theology or philosophy.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  They don't ascribe creation or judgment capabilities to these gods. Where gods are mentioned they are not ascribed a place higher than humans. Deepak doesn't go into any discussions of this except redefining God as love, not a divine being. They don't need nor desire a cosmology or beginning of humanity or a personal Creator for their philosophy to work.

As I said, Deepak is Hindu, not Buddhist.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  I don't want to misrepresent Deepak, he may blend some things but Buddhism does allow for that since much Eastern thought does have overlap, especially when dealing with holistic medicine. But he does teach Buddhism

Please read what I said above... you simply have this wrong. Chopra is a new-age guru-popularizer and not the Dalai Lama, which is who you should read if you want the straight dope, as they say.

Its like depending primarily on Joel Osteen for all of your Christian theology: leaves a lot out and emphasizes things that other Christians would not necessarily emphasize at all.

(04-25-2012 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote:  Now I have to go study more but that's fine since my Father in Law likes to talk about this with me quite spiritedly so maybe there's a reason for me to understand further.

You know the John Lennon song, "Imagine"? I'm one of those people who doesn't like to imagine the world he posits because I'd have to give up Jesus. Same for Buddhism.

John was married to a Buddhist, of course, so yes, he did get many ideas from her.

It was a Christian who shot John Lennon though. You forgot that part. He said it was God's will, so I guess he agreed with you.

[DaisyDeadhead]

Musical interlude!

[beensetfree]

Don't worry DaisyDeadhead, I can't pile on nothing at this moment. Weekends are super busy for me with all the family home.

I'm going to print out your responses and I wil remember that you, just like me, are new at posting about this subject online. I only joined SFL last June and still haven't figured out how to pare down my responses nor say what I mean.

I'll go see if I can find some sound, historical reading material as you suggested. I do have a few books but they're at my mom's far away and covered in dust. So, next week I'll get back to you.

PS- I almost made the Deepak/Osteen comparison myself. Funny! And I LOVE some Steely Dan.

Have a great weekend!

[beensetfree]

OK, I listened to this six part series when it came out in 2009. It's called "Jesus and the Other Religious Faces in the Crowd". You can find the entire series here:
Jesus and the Other Religious Faces in the Crowd.

The one you want is Gautama (Buddha)

Professor Ken Samples states explicitly that he does not want to misrepresent Buddhism and appreciates when people show Christianity that same regard.
He does background, major tenets and some comparative work. I'd forgotten how thorough it is and realize how easily I forget things.

Will anyone dare? I really enjoy scholastic lectures.

[JordanMaria]

What about reincarnation?

Is this a big part of Buddhism? Once the book I was reading mentioned it, I felt like I could no longer take Buddhism seriously.

[DaisyDeadhead]

No problem BSF.

(04-27-2012 07:44 AM)JordanMaria Wrote:  What about reincarnation?

Is this a big part of Buddhism? Once the book I was reading mentioned it, I felt like I could no longer take Buddhism seriously.

Yes, in Buddhism this is called samsara

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra

[Ricardo]

In another thread I've been talking about the need to simplify our Faith.

To paraphrase 1Cor13: If I knew all the Doctrines and Theologies, was proficient in Greek and Hebrew, but I don't have LOVE...

The same goes for Buddhism.

Part of what has always driven me crazy about Buddhism is the unwillingness or incompetence of its advocates to find English or Spanish words to describe its concepts.

Why is learning Hindi or Sanscript a requirement? What is it? There is only one language on Earth that can explain these concepts? I've been to meditation sessions where where the image that continually comes to mind is "Ramalamadingdong."

Learning Buddhism from a book is sort of defeating the purpose.

Sort of like trying to learn about God from a book. As I like to repeat: "If the only reason you know 'Jesus loves you' is because 'the Bible tells me so,' we are in a heap of trouble."

[lucrezaborgia]

(04-27-2012 11:36 AM)Ricardo Wrote:  Part of what has always driven me crazy about Buddhism is the unwillingness or incompetence of its advocates to find English or Spanish words to describe its concepts.

I'm not quite sure that it is a requirement. Some phrases and words just cannot be translated preciesly which is why we have tomes and tomes of books on the meaning of the words the original bible writers used. Words do matter.

Jordan, the part about reincarnation is sometimes interpreted as the soul refusing to die. Our need for our individual ego keeps us from being absorbed into the universal soul which is Nirvana...depending on what school of thought you subscribe to.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(04-27-2012 11:36 AM)Ricardo Wrote:  Part of what has always driven me crazy about Buddhism is the unwillingness or incompetence of its advocates to find English or Spanish words to describe its concepts.

Why is learning Hindi or Sanscript a requirement? What is it? There is only one language on Earth that can explain these concepts? I've been to meditation sessions where where the image that continually comes to mind is "Ramalamadingdong."

Buddhist scriptures are in Pali or Sanskrit, not Hindi. Hindu scriptures are in Sanskrit or Devanagari.

I recently just realized I knew what most of the Sanskrit suffixes and prefixes meant. After you learn the basic ones, they mostly repeat and mix-and-match, as in medical terminology.

My problem is not with the words per se, but the way they can used in other ways... like the word SAMSARA, there are also several non-religious novels named that. Religious words permeate an entire culture and are used in other (secular) contexts and it can be SO confusing if you do not speak the language.

Think of a word like "grace"--it means one thing in Christianity, but its also used to describe dancers and athletes in a secular way. Since we were raised in a Judeo-Christian culture, we instinctively understand why this word fits the secular context. But if you WERE NOT, would you necessarily understand why the word is used both places? You might assume someone is saying something "religious" if they used the word "grace" for instance, and then you find out they are not religious at all. Lots of Hindu and Buddhist terms are used EXACTLY LIKE THIS, and it can be terribly confusing. Like the word Dharma has a distinctively theological meaning, but also is a general term for one's fate or destiny. It took me FOREVER to learn that every time somebody said "Dharma"--they did not mean the religious idea of Dharma; it was more like saying a ballerina has "grace".

It can be really hard to get it, since we do not live in their culture and understand it instinctively.

I often wonder how much I am missing; I assume a lot. I also find myself wondering how many Christian converts from nonChristian cultures have these same translation-problems too.