Interfaith Dialogue

[tempuserus]

so i begin to see the correolation between buddhism and christenity with interfaith. i have seen the christen god not negative so i dont think it is mara so other unknown entity or demon. some devas actually do think they are some think they are creators and some of these have become used by buddhas bodhisattvas etc. so my question is could the christen god be a deva or qoute possible a bodhisattva regardeless of being ie trained as a buddhist deity by buddha/bodhisattva.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Any belief that turns you into a more compassionate person is a correct belief.

[Tatsuo]

To me the Christian deity looks more like an asura as in the Bible. It is characterized as seeking power and fighting wars by killing innumerable beings, but also by being jealous of other gods. This are the classical characters associated with asuras in the Buddhist cosmology.

[plwk]

And the relation of this topic to Gelug is.....? Shouldn't this be under 'Exploring Buddhism'?

[Mr. G]

Moved.

[Heruka]

so my question is could the christen god be a deva or qoute possible a bodhisattva regardeless of being ie trained as a buddhist deity by buddha/bodhisattva.

this depends on which god we are to use as a lens to look through?
the old testament or the new?

[Heruka]

Any belief that turns you into a more compassionate person is a correct belief.

dear karma tashi,

i think this leads to a sectarian mindset, one must examine well what the belief is?

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Any belief that turns you into a more compassionate person is a correct belief.

dear karma tashi,

i think this leads to a sectarian mindset, one must examine well what the belief is?

In turn, the Mahayana’s “wider” character is not only due to the fact that one works primarily for the salvation of all beings, but also to the fact that it is more properly based on the principle of training, which implies the commitment to break any prohibition and go beyond any limits of one’s own if that is necessary to benefit others (and there is some guarantee that the effects of one’s course of action will be positive), and thus it is like a wide road in which one may choose where to walk according to circumstances.
Elías Capriles, BUDDHISM AND DZOGCHEN, 2003, p.95.

[Heruka]

but also to the fact that it is more properly based on the principle of training,
.

I prefer education than training, there is quite a difference.

Elías Capriles, BUDDHISM AND DZOGCHEN, 2003, p.95.

Not knowing who elias capriles is, or why hes qualified to discuss dzogchen is another chapter. But if the essence is to go beyond comfort zone, im in agreement.

[Indrajala]

Any belief that turns you into a more compassionate person is a correct belief.

Not really.

Any belief that propels one onward through samsara should be abandoned, even if it superficially makes you more compassionate.

[catmoon]

Not really.

Any belief that propels one onward through samsara should be abandoned, even if it superficially makes you more compassionate.

Can you give an example or two?

[ground]

Any belief that turns you into a more compassionate person is a correct belief.

Not really.

Any belief that propels one onward through samsara should be abandoned, even if it superficially makes you more compassionate.

This is not necessarily so in Mahayana. But as to non-Mahayana you are right.
It will however necessarily be abandoned if the Mahayana is consistently practiced on the basis of method and wisdom. Wisdom alone however is not the basis of Mahayana because if it were then there would be only one paramita and not six.


Kind regards

[Indrajala]

Not really.

Any belief that propels one onward through samsara should be abandoned, even if it superficially makes you more compassionate.

Can you give an example or two?

For example believing that we are all god's children and therefore should feel compassion for all our brothers and sisters will potentially make you a more compassionate person when it comes to your interactions with fellow humans (animals are not included), but with such a view comes the fallacious idea that a single being is responsible for the creation of the universe. This undermines the right view of causality which posits that all things arise due to causes and conditions. If you insist that god is responsible for causality but not subject to it then you have a mistaken view. You posit the existence of an entity not subject to cause and effect or in other words a uncaused being. Such a mistaken view if clung to will make apprehension of emptiness impossible, nevermind the whole issue of the theodicy. Again, superficial compassion might arise as a result of such a view, but the view is in itself untenable and fallacious.

[Indrajala]

This is not necessarily so in Mahayana. But as to non-Mahayana you are right.

Not really. Mahayana advocates since the beginning have encouraged people to abandon wrong views.

It will however necessarily be abandoned if the Mahayana is consistently practiced on the basis of method and wisdom.

What is the first thing in the Eightfold Noble Path? Right view. With no right view, there is no right intention and no right practise. If there is no right view, the other seven will not be either consistently practised or successfully implemented. With wrong view, there will be no correct method at hand. With no correct method, there will be no wisdom.

I say again:

Any belief that propels one onward through samsara should be abandoned, even if it superficially makes you more compassionate.

If a wrong belief is clung to from the beginning, then there will be no right practise and no wisdom. You might end up feeling more happy and be a nicer person, but that is still samsara and your happiness nothing more than the suffering of change.

Wisdom alone however is not the basis of Mahayana because if it were then there would be only one paramita and not six.

I agree, but what most people think of as compassion is not real compassion. I am of the mind that true compassion is only possible after some degree of wisdom has been achieved coupled with proper experience in meditation. Great compassion (mahākaruṇā) is only possible after having mastered the fourth dhyāna /jhāna as until such time one has no point of reference in mind to know the suffering of the arupa-loka or formless realm beings. If you have no direct cognition of the arupa-loka, how could you know the subtle suffering of such a state of existence?

Basically, what most people think of as compassion is not real compassion that is coupled with wisdom of emptiness. It is just a superficial nice feeling towards others, but push come to shove and the true nature of such sentiments are revealed.

Trying to combine Christianity and Buddhism will go absolutely nowhere. Christianity is monotheist and is at odds with Buddhism on many many levels.

[ground]

This is not necessarily so in Mahayana. But as to non-Mahayana you are right.

Not really. Mahayana advocates since the beginning have encouraged people to abandon wrong views.

But a belief that makes you more compassionate is not necessarily a wrong view. You should not mix up categories.

It will however necessarily be abandoned if the Mahayana is consistently practiced on the basis of method and wisdom.

What is the first thing in the Eightfold Noble Path? Right view. With no right view, there is no right intention and no right practise. If there is no right view, the other seven will not be either consistently practised or successfully implemented. With wrong view, there will be no correct method at hand. With no correct method, there will be no wisdom.

Again you are changing categories for the sake of defending you position that one should abandon all believes even those that makes one more compassionate.
Nobody has doubted the necessity of right view. However right view entails right effort that entails cultivation of methods that entail compassion.

I say again:

Any belief that propels one onward through samsara should be abandoned, even if it superficially makes you more compassionate.

You may repeat it hundreds of times. That does not change anything except that you continue to condition yourself.

If a wrong belief is clung to from the beginning, then there will be no right practise and no wisdom. You might end up feeling more happy and be a nicer person, but that is still samsara and your happiness nothing more than the suffering of change.

Here is your fault: You are ignoring that wisdom always is accompying method. You are pretending that it is "either or". But that is not Mahayana.

Wisdom alone however is not the basis of Mahayana because if it were then there would be only one paramita and not six.

I agree, but what most people think of as compassion is not real compassion.

How do you know other peoples minds?
So your assumption is that others have "superficial" compassion whereas yours is "real".
Well ...

I am of the mind that true compassion is only possible after some degree of wisdom has been achieved coupled with proper experience in meditation. Great compassion (mahākaruṇā) is only possible after having mastered the fourth dhyāna /jhāna as until such time one has no point of reference in mind to know the suffering of the arupa-loka or formless realm beings. If you have no direct cognition of the arupa-loka, how could you know the subtle suffering of such a state of existence?

Basically, what most people think of as compassion is not real compassion that is coupled with wisdom of emptiness. It is just a superficial nice feeling towards others, but push come to shove and the true nature of such sentiments are revealed.

You should differentiate mere thought and direct experience. And if you do this consequently then you will stop thinking about others qualities.

Trying to combine Christianity and Buddhism will go absolutely nowhere. Christianity is monotheist and is at odds with Buddhism on many many levels.

I did not advocate this combination at all. So this is nothing that we have to discuss. The origine of this discussion is your categorical statement "Any belief that propels one onward through samsara should be abandoned" and here "should" is what I rejected because if practicing Mahayana consistently it will "naturally" be abandoned and "any" is what I rejected.


Kind regards

[catmoon]

Christians are also subject to cause, effect and karma. Thus, I think a compassionate action leads to merit regardless of who performs it. Christians who study will inevitably encounter challenges to theism, and various forms of selflessness and self denial are found all over Christianity. These ideas are surprisingly close to the main point of emptiness.

So the obstacles to enlightenment faced by Christians seem only slightly greater than those faced by Buddhists. Come to think of it, they seem to have a quite noticeable edge when it comes to pragmatic compassion and charity.

I have seen many times a process of growth in Christians that begins with God, then proceeds to the realization that God is not actually a bearded fellow on a throne in the sky, then proceeds to questioning what IS God anyhow, and sometimes ends up in forms of pantheism that don't sound much different from some forms of Buddha-nature doctrine.

The upshot is, I don't really think there are forms of compassion that are obstacles. I don't think there is such a thing as superficial compassion either, but... then there are those biker gangs that do teddy bear drives at Christmas, then go back to selling drugs and killing people in January...

[spiritnoname]

Ugh,.. what answers.

This is the only answer you really need read to know Buddhism's relationship to,... well,.. you know it is,.. the Christian god.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[KeithBC]

I have heard various rationalizations to make the Christian god palatable to Buddhists, such as that he isn't really the creator, he just thinks he is. That is fine if it makes it easier to relate to your Christian friends. But is is not what Christians believe.

My view on the god that Christians believe in is that he does not exist. This is necessarily so, because essential above all other things in their religion is the belief that he has inherent existence, was not the result of causes and conditions. Since all things that exist do so due to causes and conditions, it follows that the Christian inherently-existent god cannot be.

On the other hand, I have no trouble accepting Jesus as an historical person, as a religious leader, and even perhaps as a bodhisattva. I don't accept everything that his followers said about him, but his teachings were pretty good stuff.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[KwanSeum]

...

[KwanSeum]

so my question is could the christen god be a deva or qoute possible a bodhisattva regardeless of being ie trained as a buddhist deity by buddha/bodhisattva.

this depends on which god we are to use as a lens to look through?
the old testament or the new?

While the New Testament (NT) might be an improvement to the OT I certainly wouldn't be a Buddhist if Shakyamuni Buddha had spoken and acted as Jesus did. For example, Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34) and "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" and (Luke 22:36) "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27).

And actions speak louder than words and he looked at his critics "with anger" (Mark 3:5), attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15) and showed no respect for life by drowning innocent animals (Matthew 8:32).

Furthermore, much of the NT (including Jesus) is talking about the horrible things God will do to the unbelievers.

I am not impressed! Ahimsa is what we should be aiming for.