|
Vlad!
|
 |
« on: September 13, 2003, 02:35:14 PM » |
|
Masao Abe, a religious thinker and writer, makes several claims, many of which seem fairly hit-or-miss. But one interesting thing he gets into is comparing Christianity to Buddhism and using principles from one to try and explain mysteries in the other. A couple semi-related points regarding ethics:
-The Buddhist notion of overcoming the traditional dichotomy of good and evil with the concept of more-universal oneness might be related to the Christian notion of dying to the self or denying the flesh. You recall that one of Paul's main foci was overcoming the Law and moving to Grace/Faith. Are there analogies between the two?
-The Buddhists have religion and ethics cancelling one another out. The Jews have religion and ethics flowing both ways, where their ethics are bound up in their religion and are important for their religion. In Christianity, religion (that is, faith) cannot be achieved through ethics, but ethics CAN be (and are) achieved through religion (again, through faith). This might help illuminate certain passages in James and elsewhere.
Any thoughts? I have a pretty good idea of what I think about all this, and I'll respond to my own question later after I've thought about it more and read some other responses...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Josh
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2003, 06:58:17 PM » |
|
I'm not sure if I really understand the question, but, if you're just asking how religion and ethics relate, I'd say that your ethics stem from your religious beliefs. Or at least they should. Christians should have values and morals that line up with those espoused in Scripture. Likewise, an atheist can basically make up whatever ethics he or she chooses. In either case, one's morals are directly tied to one's religion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2003, 07:02:59 PM » |
|
There don't seem to be many takers, so let me expound my thoughts on the matter:
I think one thing Christianity has over Buddhism is grace. The purpose of denying the self in Buddhism is to experience the nothingness, the no-self. The purpose of denying the self in Christianity is to become a vessel for God's grace. Rather than emptying oneself for the sake of becoming empty, Christians empty themselves for the sake of being filled with something better.
The ethics statment wasn't really a question. But Abe would disagree with you. In Christianity your ethics stem from your beliefs, but Buddhists deny the reality of ethics at all. Humanists, on the other hand, would argue either individually or socially defined ethics, and most humanists I know vascillate between the two as it suits them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2003, 10:52:45 AM » |
|
I have studied Buddhism (moreso Hinduism, but Buddhism is a sect of Hinduism, so there you go) and there is a lot of similarties between it and Christianity. For anyone interested, i'd check out Pure Land Buddhism; it's very much like Christianity.
One thing I find interesting is that you can philosophically be Buddhist while religiously being Christian, but can you really do the opposite?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2003, 04:59:20 PM » |
|
I have studied Buddhism (moreso Hinduism, but Buddhism is a sect of Hinduism, so there you go) and there is a lot of similarties between it and Christianity. For anyone interested, i'd check out Pure Land Buddhism; it's very much like Christianity.
One thing I find interesting is that you can philosophically be Buddhist while religiously being Christian, but can you really do the opposite? I haven't studied the particular branch you discuss, but Buddhism and Christianity have some fundamental differences that it's hard to get around. The idea of the samsaric cycle and the quest of the Buddha nature are both completely different from what Christianity teaches. One can adopt good ideas from other religions, but thinking that you can straddle the fence is generally foolhardy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2003, 08:07:02 AM » |
|
I have studied Buddhism (moreso Hinduism, but Buddhism is a sect of Hinduism, so there you go) and there is a lot of similarties between it and Christianity. For anyone interested, i'd check out Pure Land Buddhism; it's very much like Christianity.
One thing I find interesting is that you can philosophically be Buddhist while religiously being Christian, but can you really do the opposite? I haven't studied the particular branch you discuss, but Buddhism and Christianity have some fundamental differences that it's hard to get around. The idea of the samsaric cycle and the quest of the Buddha nature are both completely different from what Christianity teaches. One can adopt good ideas from other religions, but thinking that you can straddle the fence is generally foolhardy. Not all sects of Buddhism believe in samsara and the Buddha quest. Now yes, there are some fundamental differences, but they have more in common than many would think. Also, Buddhism as a philosophy and Buddhism as a religion are two different things. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Skrappybiskit
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2003, 09:30:30 AM » |
|
I haven't studied this either, but I'm interested if you could elaborate on the difference between the Bhuddist philosphy and religion. SOmehow in my mind it seems that a philosophy generally develops from a religion or desire to circumvent a religion, but I'm willing to have that view challenged.
Skraps
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2003, 09:37:23 AM » |
|
I too would like to know more. It seems that associating a philosophy with a religion suggests that one necessarily follows the other. And what is Buddhism without reincarnation and the search for the Buddha nature? The concept of the middle path is an admirable one, but I don't think it offers a general-purpose answer to life's problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2003, 09:36:10 AM » |
|
I don't have a lot of time to get into it at the moment, but the best way to put it is there is a big difference between Eastern thought and Western thought in general. Trying to understand Buddhism through Western thinking will always leave you confused.
As stupid as it may sound, for a start in studying Buddhism i'd recommend The Complete Idiots Guide to Eastern Philosophy. Now yes there is one specifically on Buddhism, but this book covers Hinduism (which Buddhism is a sect of) as well. It helps in the understanding of Buddhism.
Now as for a philosophy not being a religion i'll say this. I can't comment much on Buddhism because i'm not that philosophically. As far as that's concerned i'd consider myself more Celtic and possibly Taoist. Having a great respect for nature because it is God's creation. That's a philosophy, whereas a religion would be more along the lines of worshipping nature. Another I really like about Celticism is the idea of immanence. Immanence being that God is in everything (which is where the great respect of nature comes from), I think that's a belief Christians could benefit from. Maybe that's what Celtic Christianity is for.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2003, 01:46:31 PM » |
|
When you decide to pick elements from different philosophies and religions, how do you know that you are picking rightly? I find it very dangerous to pick through beliefs and choose the ones you like. I think the Bible leaves us with a pretty narrow definition of truth that we have to go by.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2003, 05:11:02 PM » |
|
No, Dv, I'm not arguing that we should form a make-your-own-religion kit with ingredients from major world religions included! This is what I want to avoid. I'm just saying that sometimes other religions contain concepts which help us see what we believe more clearly. I'm not preaching religious pluralism here by any means!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
DvChWi
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2003, 05:24:54 PM » |
|
No, Dv, I'm not arguing that we should form a make-your-own-religion kit with ingredients from major world religions included! This is what I want to avoid. I'm just saying that sometimes other religions contain concepts which help us see what we believe more clearly. I'm not preaching religious pluralism here by any means! No, I totally understand that. My comments were direct at our guest, not at you. By studying different religions, we can build a framework in which to place Christianity. Also, this understanding can be very useful in evangelism. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fun facts about Chuck Norris:
Newton's Third Law is wrong: Although it states that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, there is no force equal in reaction to a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick.
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
Chuck Norris CAN believe it's not butter.
|
|
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
|
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2003, 08:38:25 PM » |
|
When you decide to pick elements from different philosophies and religions, how do you know that you are picking rightly? I find it very dangerous to pick through beliefs and choose the ones you like. I think the Bible leaves us with a pretty narrow definition of truth that we have to go by. You are misunderstanding me. I don't pick and choose what to believe. I believe in Christianity 100%. However I also believe things from other religions (as long as they aren't un-Christian) that Christianity doesn't usually express to a great extent. An example would be a great respect and care for nature because it is God's creation, not something you hear from many pulpits, but not un-Christian either. Also, the idea of immanence is very much a Christian concept, except we usually call it omnipresent. Now perhaps immanence takes it a little farther, but I see nothing to take issue with. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vlad!
|
|
« Reply #13 on: September 16, 2003, 08:40:50 PM » |
|
There's a difference with saying that God sees the tree and God is the tree. I can see what you're saying (about using other cultures' ideas), but that particular one smacks of pantheism, which is not the same as Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don’t have freedom as a principle, you can never see a reason not to make an exception. There are constantly going to be times when for one reason or another there’s some practical convenience in making an exception.
rms
|
|
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
|
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2003, 09:10:44 AM » |
|
Of course God is not the tree, but I do believe He is in the tree.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
GusX:
|
|
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2003, 11:16:10 PM » |
|
By that -honoured guest- do you mean to say that God is part of a nirvanic truth ? and, therefore removing Him from being the only source of truth ?
Please elaborate - Im confused ...
If God is part of a truth yet you are a 100 percent Christian you are mistooken from my standpoint - Christianity historically holds that God is eternal both backwards in time, and forwards. Therfore - He created truth, and all other "truth" must be a derivitave from Him. Think of that truth, more like the leaves from the Great tree - God -
( This builds on the premise that God is the only divine charectar that ever exists..)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 14, 2003, 11:19:54 PM by GusX: »
|
Logged
|
But of course, I could be wrong... [ But I doubt it. ]
|
|
|
|
