|
|
| Is there such a thing as a Buddhist Christian? Is it a belief or somewhat orginized religion? For some reason this phrase "Buddhist Christian" has been going through my head. If you dont know what I'm talking about, ignore me, because I dont know what I'm talking about. Im trying to figure this thought out. I feel like I've heard this somewhere..... |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
 
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Well, the way I understand Buddhism and Hinduism is that it is not a religion...it is a way of life. Therefore, whatever religion you practice, it compliments your practice very nicely. It has the potential to make you a better Christian  |
|
| |
|
| Dear FamousLadyJane:
There can not be a term called 'Buddhist Christian' because it will amount to saying Female Boy. This is because of the following:
Buddhism is an outshoot of Hindu Philosophy. Hindu Philosophy is a wrong term. It is Vedic Philosophy. And, there was never any Hindu Philosophy. The name Hindu Philosophy came due to later day religious sects such as Christianity, Islam, and to some extent Buddhism.
There is NOTHING in Buddhism which is additional to original Hindu Philosophy, which is more extensive, and in that respect Buddhism is an outshoot of Hindu Philosophy.
Now, Christianity is based on a belief system revolving around the personality and sayings of Jesus Christ. I am NOT saying that Jesus himself meant this to happen, but that is what happens. And, therefore, Christianity is a religion.
Thus, in principle, as for as the Name is concerned Buddhism and Chrisitinity will be potentially different, and therefore term 'Buddhist Christian' can not exist.
However, as you know from your life, the principles of life, philosophy, good/bad, etc are common throughout the universe. Otherwise, good at one place may mean bad at another place. And, that is where the Yoga Science comes in, which tells the absolute principle. jaatideshakaalasamyaanavachchinah saarvabhaumaa mahaavratam..patanjali 300 B.C. In that sense, one may say that there is commonality between Buddhism and Christianity. For example, there is a commonality of 'Being Human' between Boy and a Girl. However, Female Boy is a weird term. Same with Buddhist Christian.
Peace
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| kulkarnn - 2005-04-13 9:41 AM ...However, Female Boy is a weird term. I guess you've not been to Thailand Brother Neel--not only is a weird term, it's a weird thing to see first hand too...yikes! |
|
| |
|
| Hey Big Brother Bruce: Tell me what you see in Thialand. I am curious.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| Hmmm. Well, what if a person thinks of Jesus not as an average Christian does, but that Jesus was 'enlightened' (in a sense, or close to) and came to tell others, but no body really understood him? I guess that's a whole other...belief.... I dunno.
Its so hard figuring out and knowing, because all we have are books. We weren't actually there. In our current bodies I mean. We have to relearn.
Thanks for explaining. |
|
| |
|
| I have just finished reading Siddharta (which I realize is a novel, not a documentary). What I got from that was that the Buddhist path is a seeker's path - not to follow any leader or learn from books and teachings, but to realize the truth through learning to understand the self and thus the greater whole, finally transcending the self. Any Buddhists out there, feel free to correct me!!
But, if I'm understanding the path correctly, strictly following the teachings of one man (i.e. Jesus Christ) would not fall in with a Buddhist belief system. Although, learning what that man knew and taught might be a step on the path of discovering one's own soul. What is popularly known as "Christian values" may be a moral and right way to live, without necessarily worshipping the teacher (Jesus). Unfortunately, American culture has twisted the term "Christian values" to such an extreme that it is more often viewed as a self-righteous and judgemental way of life than of the love and generosity of spirit that was its original intent.
So, if the seeker's path includes exploring Christian teachings and experimenting with living by Christan values, this is a perfectly wonderful way to continue to discover the Self. But, at that point on the path, I would call the seeker a Christian. That may later become a Buddhist, as further knowledge is sought.
I'm still trying to take it all in and understand it myself, and I took a lot of allergy medication so it could just be the Benadryl talking!  |
|
| |
|
| Dear FamousLadyJane:
It is Hard if All that we use is the words in the Books. But, in the spiritual practice, these only form a starting point, and then one has to actuallize the realization in one's life. Then one comes to know what the Vedas say:
ekam sat sat vipraa bahudaa vadanti.. Upnishad, before 4000 years before Christ
The same truth is explained differently by different sages. (due to difference in words, not in the truth itself.)
OR
as the water of all rivers ultimately merges into the Seas, the prayers to all the deities ultimately merge into Vishnu (vishwam vyaapnoti it vishnuh... ), that is the all pervading god.
Peace
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| I love clarity. Thanks to the both of you. I now 'get' a little more.  |
|
| |
|
| FamousLadyJane - 2005-04-13 12:44 AM
Is there such a thing as a Buddhist Christian? Is it a belief or somewhat orginized religion? For some reason this phrase "Buddhist Christian" has been going through my head. If you dont know what I'm talking about, ignore me, because I dont know what I'm talking about. Im trying to figure this thought out. I feel like I've heard this somewhere.....
I'm going to broaden your question a little. Are there Christians who have found spiritual enlightment using Eastern techniques and still remained Christians.
I know of at least three.
"seek the other half of their soul". This is the title given to a special retreat type experience facilitated by Asha and Russill Paul. The phrase was taken from the writings of their mentor, the late Dom Bede Griffiths, a pioneering Benedictine monk who directed a Christian Ashram in the Hindu culture.
http://www.bedegriffiths.com/
is the website. He has written many books that can be found online at sites like amazon.com, or barnesandnoble.com. I don't know much about him.
Anthony De Mello is a Jesuit Priest from Goia (a Portuguese colony in India) who wrote many books, the most popular was Sadhana. He's interesting because he tells small tales to consider for meditations. I find him very reacheable.
Thomas Merton was a Trappist monk who did the same. His most famous work is No Man is an Island, but he wrote about 70 books. Some people have commented that his latest books are very ZEN.
www.mertonfoundation.org/
www.monks.org/thomasmerton.html
www.thomasmertoncenter.org/
Matthew Fox now an Episcopal Priest has done similar things.
http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/door/
He's interesting, although a bit new agey for me.
So if you find it interesting to search for those combining Eastern techniques and Christianity to be an interesting line of inquiry, there are others who have gone there before.
Edited by MrD 2005-04-14 7:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
| No, this is not possible, because the entire worldview of Buddhism & Christianity is incompatible. Christians believe that people are not any part of God, but that people (& everything except God Himself) were created by God out of nothing. Xtns reject belief that the universe is God playing games with Himself.
We view that God is our Father, holy, separate, having all power and arranging history to fulfill HIs purpose. We view people as being in the cosmic sense inherently evil, not good. The only way for a man to become good in God's eyes is to be reborn, to have his sins paid for by the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf.
Not exactly a Buddhist viewpoint. |
|
| |
|
| elson - 2005-04-14 11:08 PM
No, this is not possible, because the entire worldview of Buddhism & Christianity is incompatible. Christians believe that people are not any part of God, but that people (& everything except God Himself) were created by God out of nothing. Xtns reject belief that the universe is God playing games with Himself.
We view that God is our Father, holy, separate, having all power and arranging history to fulfill HIs purpose. We view people as being in the cosmic sense inherently evil, not good. The only way for a man to become good in God's eyes is to be reborn, to have his sins paid for by the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf.
Not exactly a Buddhist viewpoint.
This is one Christian point of view, yes. |
|
| |
|
| That sounds totally ridiculous to me. And, what little I know of Jesus Christ's love for others, these statements/logic seems lunacy to me. Let me show how:
God created world out of Nothing. Then, he can not be Father. Father creates the world out of himself.
Now, people are inherently evil. That means God created evil creation. That means God is evil inherently as he is father of evil things.
People were absolved only when Jesus came to help them. That means before Jesus all people were not absolved and only those after Jesus will be absolved. The people before Jesus have died before him, and so they have no reason to believe in him.
I think the above all is interesting. And, I am glad that Budhdhist do not follow such a logic. And, therefore there can not be a Buddhist Christian or Christian Buddhist. In that respect I agree with elson.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| >> God created world out of Nothing. Then, he can not be Father. Father creates the world out of himself.
You are talking about the words, not the concept, Neel. Before the beginning, before what we think of as the space-and-time thing, there was only God. No matter, no energy, no thing. God is Other than what we see and feel. He created the universe out of nothing. In other words, He made stuff, and then He formed the stuff into the universe. If you have trouble understanding that, don't worry. I imagine the mathematics of it would be tiring.
>> Now, people are inherently evil. That means God created evil creation. That means God is evil inherently as he is father of evil things.
Nope. I'll do a few more of these, but it's late.
God created people as good creatures, but with the ability to choose to do evil. Our first parents were also immortal, and life was idylic - no evil was in the world. But then they sinned, and death entered the world. The evil that entered the world caused changes in humanity - genetic and spiritual changes - so that man was no longer born with the ability to resist doing evil. There are other facets to this, but that is the basic thing. We were created good, and messed it up.
But to the deeper question - God knowingly created humanity, knowing all of the evil that would result from that act. God is using all of what seems evil to us - pain and suffering - to bring forth a good which will overshadow everything that has come before. But let me ask you, Neel - would you rather God had _not_ created life, the universe, and everything? If not, if you prefer to live in a world containing evil, rather than to never have been born - then will you condemn God for that creation?
Finally, if you object to being born in such a state that you can do evil - and other people can do evil - which would you prefer, to be yourself & able to do evil, or to not have the ability to do evil? Think before you answer...
>> People were absolved only when Jesus came to help them. That means before Jesus all people were not absolved and only those after Jesus will be absolved. The people before Jesus have died before him, and so they have no reason to believe in him.
It is good that God is an eternal being who knows everything, including all of the events of history. He did not have to wait until after Jesus' incarnation, in order to apply Jesus' sacrifice to those who lived before the incarnation.
Edited by elson 2005-04-17 5:00 AM
|
|
| |
|
| This mathematics would tire any logical person. So, I give up.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
  
| Good for you, Neel!  I think it is fair to say, and I think someone has said this already, that Christians can be influenced by many types of philosophy and still be Christians. One can admire and emulate those of other philosophical schools of thought and even those of other religions without having to give up one's core beliefs. As a matter of fact, is that not how yoga came to North America? A conference of religious thinkers getting together and sharing their similarities and faiths? |
|
| |
|
| I think there is often a view that Christianity is an exclusivist religion (ie: one way to liberation, that is through Christ) but Buddhism (especially Mahayana) is equally exclusivist.
According to them, there is no Buddhahood outside the Buddhist sect. If one doesn't take refuge in the three jewels (one of which includes the Buddhist community) there is no possibility of liberation (unless one is a pratyekabuddha, but that is impossible in this era). Furthermore, refuge in the Buddha does not allow for refuge on other beings (ie: Christ).
"There is NOTHING in Buddhism which is additional to original Hindu Philosophy, which is more extensive, and in that respect Buddhism is an outshoot of Hindu Philosophy."
Thats really not true, given that much of Vedantic philosophy is heavily influenced by Buddhism. Sankara's Vedanta for instance, is based on the true truths and general dialectics that come from Yogacara and Madhyamika. Sankara was very much anti-Buddhist but his paramguru, Gaudapada praised the Buddha himself very often (some even say he might have been Buddhist, but this is hard to believe); it is quite clear that he borrowed extensively from these Buddhist philosophies.
The two truths, and the indeterminate nature of maya are both not to be found in the Upanishads (unless one tries to be extremely creative).
In general Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy is not at all compatible with the idea of Brahman. Buddhists hold that there is nothing at all that has an absolute existence.
Having said that, I agree that Buddhism should be classified in general as part of the Vedic tradition because of its emphasis on liberation in life with meditation, and belief in common tenents, (rebirth, karma, etc..)
Regards |
|
| |
|
| BelovedOfTheGod:
I do not know which resources are you using, but I must correct this:
Shankara was NOT anti Budhdhist. Shankara was a soul which takes birth once in millions. He was scholar, saint, kind, all at one time. He completed his study of Vedas before he was 12 and he took monastic vows with the permission of his mother before he was 18. His work is incomprehensible even to scholars in one life time. Budhdhist monastery was Corrupted at the 600 A.D. and slightly before that time in India. Buddhist monks were leading the Indian community ashtray by giving wrong understanding by giving conviniences to their joys (such as relaxation of meat eating, drinking of alcohol, etc.) to get people attracted to their religion. To correct the understanding of people and re-establish Vedic Philosophy which can never be questioned, as it is NOT religious and it is based on true priniciples, he followed the procedures of that time, which were as follows:
One can approach any scholar in debate and practical demonstration, and the one who is defeated becomes the student of the defeater.
Shankara had defeated all the scholars in the entire India including the highest Buddhist Position called Mishra at that time. Now, most of the Buddhist Scholars were originally Vedic scholars and they had joined Budhdhism, NOT for change of philosophy, but for other gains. And, they were defeated, some of them becames Vedic students, whereas many of them burnt themselves as a part of defeat.
Now, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Shankara's guru to be Buddhist. Lord Buddha was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, a partial re-incarnation. However, his disciples and later followers could not put into practice his self realization, and philsophy, which is a small subset of Vedas (and, therefore a similarity between Vedic and Budhdhist, and Hinduism which came as name after Christianity and Buddhism and Islam).
Therefore, you shall find in India, people worship Buddha, but not Buddhism.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| Beloved BelovedOfTheGod:
To add: Vedas are 10000+ years before christ. Buddha is 300 before Christ. There is NO reason for Vedanta to borrow from Buddhism. Shankara did not form Vedanta, he only commented on the Advaita Vedanta. He was only a teacher, not inventor. He did re-organize the understanding and commented on the most ancient Vedic Philosophy. Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and Buddhist world has a problem of accepting the fact that Vedic Philosophy was so true and advanced 10s of thousands of years ago. And, therefore, they either get confused or create confusion. This same thing happened in some other fields, such as Zimbabwe's architecture which was far superior to that of the Europeans at one time, was attributed to white man and history was suppressed. Later, a white woman had to purchase her own airplane and she proved that it was very late when White man reached Zimbabwe whereas the local people were far advanced in architecture than whites and europeans.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| Dear Kulkarnn,
"Shankara was NOT anti Budhdhist."
I don't mean this in a bad way, but he really didn't like Buddhist ideas, doctrines and practices, that is quite clear.
"Now, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Shankara's guru to be Buddhist. Lord Buddha was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, a partial re-incarnation. However, his disciples and later followers could not put into practice his self realization, and philsophy, which is a small subset of Vedas (and, therefore a similarity between Vedic and Budhdhist, and Hinduism which came as name after Christianity and Buddhism and Islam). "
First, its Sankara's paramguru not his guru. Of course by tradition, he can't be. But if one does unbiased analysis one clearly sees a lot of influence. Gaudapada even ends his Karika saying "This was not written by the Buddha"! Anyway for what its worth, I don't believe at all that Gaudapada was a Buddhist.
"To add: Vedas are 10000+ years before christ. Buddha is 300 before Christ."
I think Indians trying to make the Vedas older than it is, are really making them younger than they are. Because you take such postions, no one takes you seriously and general perception is about 1,200BCE. With proper research it is obvious that the Samhitas are surely older than 3,000BCE. However, if you start saying dates randomly, no one is going to believe you and in the long run this kind of approach is what has convinced people that the Vedas is 1,200BCE. If you keep saying 10,000 without evidence, people will keep saying 1,200 with poor evidence.
"There is NO reason for Vedanta to borrow from Buddhism. Shankara did not form Vedanta, he only commented on the Advaita Vedanta. He was only a teacher, not inventor"
The Rig Veda does not contain Vedanta, there is monotheism in it (Nasadiya Sukta), pantheism (Purusha Sukta) but surely not monism and surely not anything Mayavadin. This is accepted even by well-respected Hindu scholars such as S. Radhakrishnan. The people who claim otherwise usually do so out of emotional respect and undefended positions are never believed - overglorifying a text is the best way to disrespect it.
The early Upanishads are pre-Buddhistic, the middle ones are contemporary with Buddhism.
In any case, it is clear that Sankara (together with Gaudapada) and the Upanishads do not really agree. The Upanishads clearly have a pantheistic element, which is completely lacking in Mayavadi philosophy. There is no two-truth distinction in the Upanishads - this came into the Vedic tradition from the Madhyamika school via Gaudapada. Gaudapda's often approaches the idealistic subjectivism of the Vijnanavadas, which is not in the Upanishads (Sankara tries to remedy this, distinguishing between dream and waking state for instance, Gaudapada holds them to be the same). Maya in general, as Sankara's system understands it, is not to be found in the Upanishads,
Regards. |
|
| |
|
| Dear Beloved BelovedOfTheGod:
I do not have time to discuss each issue you brought up herewith. However, to dispell your misunderstandings of Philosophies and also of myself, let me only clear one topic. I can clear all the topics in the same way, but I choose not to do each one at this time, may be at later time.
- one has to agree somewhere. let us agree Jesus Christ was actually born and did exist. Let us call that year 0 year before christ or 0 B.C.
- there is no doubt as to Gautama Buddha lived before Jesus, and is calculated to be around 300 b.c.
- Mahabharata when ShreemadBhagavadgita was told has already been proven by majority of world scholars to be 3200 before Christ.
- Vedavyasa, wrote ' Mahabharata with Shree Mad Bhagavadgita' in 3200 or slightly before that before Christ. In Mahabharata he summarized the Veda Philosophy in a Story Epic Form which also automatically was History of India because the Vedic Philosophy is ingrained in thhe Indian Blood or Society. (Whether you call it glorification or whatever, does not matter to me. Because, not calling so, or non glorification of this, does not make it more correct.) Also, Shreemad Bhagavadgita is a summary of all Upanishads.
- Now, there are 108 Upanishads, 18 Puranas written by Veda Vyasa, 6 sciences called shat darshanas, etc. How many years would you like to add to account for these, whether they are parallel or in sequence?
- Next, Vedavyasa also codified only 5 percent of Vedas as the understanding passed down by Shruti method was getting less and less. So, he codified them in Sanskrit. And, that is the importance of Sanskrit.
- Now, with all these you shall find that original Vedas are 10000+ years old.
In fact, if you know what Vedas mean, you would not even worry about all this. Because, Vedic Sages realized the Cycles of Creation, and in each cycle one realizes that knowledge through only Vedas that is Sound form of knowledge, and it is only in meditation and not in the books in the shops. Thus, Vedas are considered Anaadi, without beginning. And, the Vedic Philosophy is called sanaatana, meaning everlasting. The name Hinduism given to this philosophy in recent times, after Christianity and Buddhism, and Islam tried to spread their religion of conversion, automatically has Vedic Philosophy in it. And, therefore, today's Hindu states:
Hindu dharma is sanaatana.
Anyway, I hope you get correct resources for your understanding.
Peace
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| Hi kulkarnn,
"- one has to agree somewhere. let us agree Jesus Christ was actually born and did exist. Let us call that year 0 year before christ or 0 B.C."
This is fine.
"- there is no doubt as to Gautama Buddha lived before Jesus, and is calculated to be around 300 b.c."
This is generally fine too, though the usual date is mid 500 BCs. However, 400BC is gaining popularity.
"Mahabharata when ShreemadBhagavadgita was told has already been proven by majority of world scholars to be 3200 before Christ."
Absolutely untrue, most scholars of Indian history don't even agree that such an event ever took place, let that it happened in 3200BCE. Please name some scholars (non-partisans, of course orthodox Hindus will stick to the orthodox date) who agree with this.
"- Vedavyasa, wrote ' Mahabharata with Shree Mad Bhagavadgita' in 3200 or slightly before that before Christ. In Mahabharata he summarized the Veda Philosophy in a Story Epic Form which also automatically was History of India because the Vedic Philosophy is ingrained in thhe Indian Blood or Society. (Whether you call it glorification or whatever, does not matter to me. Because, not calling so, or non glorification of this, does not make it more correct.) Also, Shreemad Bhagavadgita is a summary of all Upanishads."
Thats wonderful, except most scholars place the Bhagavadgita and the Mahabharata to 400BCE to 400AD.
"Now, there are 108 Upanishads, 18 Puranas written by Veda Vyasa, 6 sciences called shat darshanas, etc. How many years would you like to add to account for these, whether they are parallel or in sequence?"
A respected strand of standard scholarship accepts old Upanishads to be 1000BCE (many scholars still stick to the 600BCE date which is not realistic). The middle Upanishads flow out until the early centuries AD. Some Upanishads (the Yoga Upanishads) are dated as late as the 14th century AD. So the Upanishads are all over the place date wise. The Puranas are usually dated to about 400AD-600AD though clearly there were prototype Puranas that go as far back as 200BCE. They might be older, but standard scholarship does not accept much older dates. The Darshans vary in date, for instance Samkhya is nearly simultaneous with early Upanishads, whilst Vedanta Darshan was systematized in 400-500BCE.
" Next, Vedavyasa also codified only 5 percent of Vedas as the understanding passed down by Shruti method was getting less and less. So, he codified them in Sanskrit. And, that is the importance of Sanskrit."
This hyperbole, not to be taken literally.
"Now, with all these you shall find that original Vedas are 10000+ years old. "
No proper study has come to this conclusion. You are just speculating and there is plenty of evidence against such an old age, eg: no horses in the subcontinent that long ago.
"Because, Vedic Sages realized the Cycles of Creation, and in each cycle one realizes that knowledge through only Vedas that is Sound form of knowledge, and it is only in meditation and not in the books in the shops."
Thats fine as religious belief, but you cannot mix it up with proper scholarship. Simply put, you have no extra-scriptural proof of this, it may convince someone who believes scripture, but for everyone else its just a blank claim that contradicts history.
"Hindu dharma is sanaatana."
A position that reduces most of Indian philosophy to absurdity. Do you realize what happens to say, Advaita Vedanta, if the Dharma is said to be nitya?
Regards. |
|
| |
|
| Dear BelovedOfChrist:
I wish to make only the following statements, especially in relation to the timings of Mahabharata, Vedas, etc. Actually, my main interest is NOT at all in the timings, though I just want to give you only two examples of sources, which are respected internationally, which talk about these dates. I am sure you will find hundreds such if you do an internet search. And, just like you gave reasonings for 1400 bc, you shall find other reasonings for earlier or later dates. However, in whichever way, I must accept that I do not wish to pursue the date issue.
Please see the following:
http://www.geocities.com/dipalsarvesh/datingMahabharat.html#conclusions
Now, let me comment on the other part, such as whether the Vedic Realizations were truths realized in Meditations and such, which you call hyperbole. I can only tell you that from my own Yoga Practice over 30+ years, these are not hyperbole. And, these truths can actually be realized.
Lastly, I do not know what your definition of Scholars is. But, you are correct in saying that in the India, when they say scholars they mean more through faith, than how the Western World looks at history. On the other hand, in the Western world, the history is hidden, modified, and manipulated to the advantage of few. And, in the Indian faith, they are interested in the Experience, not degrees. I can assure you, if you believe in me, that the Vedic Statements can be experienced.
With Love and Peace
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org
|
|
| |
|
| Dear ILOVEGOD:
I want to inform you that Buddha and Buddhism are two different things. Exactly same as Jesus Christ and Christianity are two different things. I hope you did not mean Buddha when you used the word Buddhism. That will be a very stupid statement from one who loves god like ILOVEGOD.
Now, if you mean Buddhism is Stupid, please explain why. And, what do you mean by Stupid. If you do not explain this, you will no doubt be a Stupid.
Neel Kulkarni
www.authenticyoga.org |
|
| |
|
| "I can't believe people used to worship the sun! How stupid! Nowadays we're smart - we worship a carpenter who died 2000 years ago."
- Bart Simpson |
|
| |
Buddhist Christian
