Jesus: a zen buddist?

[Socrates]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 29 2005, 01:50 PM']part of it is a philosophy. That would be more akin to the idea presented here of the ancient buddhist way and the original teachings. Today it is different.

You can follow a buddhist philosophy on most points and still be Catholic and Christian; however, a follower of the modern tradition could not be both.
[right][snapback]627594[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Buddhism is built on Hindu ideas, and as such is incompatable with the Catholic Faith. It teaches the ultimate non-existence of reality, and teaches a way to escape from existence and individualtiy, rather than to spend eternity with Our Lord and Creator.

Christianity and Buddhism differ on the fundamental nature of reality!

[Guest JeffCR07]

As I said above, there are a number of central tenants of Taoism and Buddhism that are incompatable with Christian thought.

Semperviva, Taoism is more like a philosophy than Buddhism, however, there are philosophical and religious elements in each.

While my above post focused more on the fundamental inconsistencies in Taoism, there are Buddhist doctrines, such as the Doctrine of No-Self, that are totally inconsistent as well.

If you "take out" any of these essential elements, then you are no longer following Buddhist/Taoist philosophy. As such, one can have a (Taoist/Buddhist)-like spirituality that focuses very much on detatchment from worldly things, but this would not be the same as practicing Buddhism or Taoism.

One cannot practice Buddhism or Taoism and remain fundamentally Christian. The Da Qin Luminous Religioun in China clearly shows this, as does their scripture, the Jesus Sutras.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 29 2005, 01:56 PM']Buddhism is built on Hindu ideas, and as such is incompatable with the Catholic Faith.  It teaches the ultimate non-existence of reality, and teaches a way to escape from existence and individualtiy, rather than to spend eternity with Our Lord and Creator.

Christianity and Buddhism differ on the fundamental nature of reality!
[right][snapback]627601[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You are correct to note that Buddhism is built on Hinduism, but Buddhism does not teach the non-existence of reality. You may be confusing this notion with the Doctrine of No-Self.

[Semperviva]

[i]the Jesus Sutras!?!?[/i]

...what do they believe about Christ?

[Socrates]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 02:01 PM']You are correct to note that Buddhism is built on Hinduism, but Buddhism does not teach the non-existence of reality. You may be confusing this notion with the Doctrine of No-Self.
[right][snapback]627610[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

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.

[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.