PeterC wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:09 am
I’m not sure you’re fairly representing either the Buddhist perspective - even the East Asian version, which is way more substantialist than its Indian antecedents - or the Christian/Islamic/Talmudic perspective.
One of them has a creator god, an immortal soul, no reincarnation, sin. The other has pratityasamutpada, anatman, karma. We could go on but the distinction here is sufficient - this is a gap that cannot be closed by posting some deeper meaning, unless you posit that one side is a provisional teaching, and neither side would accept that statement of their own beliefs.
Even when you go into the less mainstream teachings of either side, the gulf remains. The tathagatagarbha teachings do not refute the above points, nor do the Dzogchen tantras - which indeed provide more explanation as to how Buddhas and sentient beings respectively arise. The esoteric forms of the Abrahamic religions (Sufism etc.) similarly do not refute the basic tenets of their beliefs.
One could claim that there are, perhaps, similarities in techniques. But this is not sufficient to say they are “essentially the same” or “pointing to the same thing”. Most of the meditational techniques of Buddhism can be found in the Vedic traditions: however the view is profoundly different between the two, centuries of interaction and debate established them to be incompatible.
The view matters. When HHDL speaks at interfaith conferences he will say reassuring platitudes about all religions seeking the same thing, the fundamental human problem being the same for all people, etc etc. But then when he teaches the Dharma he will prostrate before an image of the Buddha and say something like, I bow before the Buddha who taught the Dharma for the purpose of eliminating wrong views. I forget the exact words he likes to use. My point is that the ecumenical spirit is good, because we have to live together with people who hold different views, and mutual tolerance is necessary. But it is wrong to say that religions are essentially the same.
I happened to post this on another forum in a discussion related to refuge and how taking refuge in the 3 jewels conflicts with also trying to be a Christian, Muslim, etc. Part of it seems to fit here as well. I quoted HHDL, from his book The Essence of the Heart Sutra, where he discusses the need for ecumenicalism, and yet draws a hard line in the sand:
To these Christian brothers and sisters, I have observed that the teaching of emptiness--the teaching that all things are devoid of any absolute existence--is unique to Buddhism, and therefore perhaps a deeply committed Christian practitioner might be wise not to delve too deeply into this aspect of Buddhist teaching. The reason for this caution is that if someone begins to delve deeply into the Buddhist teaching of emptiness and truly pursues it, it can undermine one's faith in a creator--an absolute, independent, eternal being that is, in short, not empty...
if one pursues any path deeply enough, it eventually becomes necessary to embrace one spiritual path together with its underlying metaphysics.
I also quoted Thinley Norbu's A Cascading Waterfall of Nectar, and while some of it may not be totally relevant, I think his careful distinction between Buddhist and non-Buddhist views is worth mentioning:
Are there deceivers? There is no doubt there are a great many. Who are they? They are those who are never worthy of trust because they represent all the causes and results of the suffering of samsaric phenomena. Where do they come from? They are from among all those who hold the various doctrines of eternalist views of this world. Each kind of eternalist has its own way of recognizing the meaning of its own gods, with different ways of describing how its gods created the world and different ways of worshipping its gods...
each is convinced that the essence of their god is permanent, and that their god has created the impermanent universe, all living beings, happiness, suffering, and so on...
To examine this logically according to Buddhist theory: if the essence of a god who created the world were permanent, unchanging, and enduring, it would be impossible for that god ever to perform actions...
If the gods' pleasure and displeasure are dependent on the root and contributing circumstances of other beings, this means that gods are not able to transcend changing phenomena. If a god relies on other beings, and if those beings are impermanent, it means that the god is not permanent or unchanging. This reasoning demonstrates that the concept of establishing the essence of gods as permanent is a mere fabrication that cannot actually exist...
Generally, in Buddhism, gods are considered not ultimate but temporary because gods themselves cannot give up a self. That is why Kunkhyen Rongzompa identifies eternalist gods as worldly deities... There is no view of how to reach the fully enlightened state that is connected with eternalist gods...
Buddha has purified self, so that is why Buddha is fully enlightened. Because eternalism does not give up the view of an existing self, whether a god is considered intermediate or supreme, there is still the cause of passions and karma... Whenever there is cause and effect, a possessor comes, and there is samsara no matter what aspect of gods arises.
My point is that ecumenicalism is a great and necessary thing, but that shouldn't somehow advocate for perrenialism. I know tkp67 disputed the fact that eternalism was brought up, but I think it is an important distinction. But the even more important distinction is the last few lines of the Thinley Norbu quote: gods and their religions are not a means for awakening, but rather for the causes and effects of samsara, and thus cannot be equated with Buddhadharma, ultimate or provisional.
Sin is not karma for example. In the Abrahamic faiths, humans are simply punished by a god. The law of cause and effect is simply said to be the way things are, not the will of a god or Buddha. In addition, karma brings many more effects than just what you could equate to God's punishing of sins. For example, sin and punishment doesn't address habitual tendencies, the way karma affects how you experience things (not just what you experience) etc. One concrete example is this: one karmic effect of lying is that people won't trust you, won't take seriously what you say etc. The punishment for the sin of lying is hellfire. One has results in this lifetime, the other is only a result after this life. The concept of the soul and mind in Buddhism is another good example. After all, an eternal soul is exactly what the Buddha rejected with non-self. If we equate the Christian concept of soul with mind, then why did the Buddha reject the Hindu/Jain theory of Atman? Also, this is why eternalism was brought up. The theory of a soul is an eternalist idea, and is completely rejected in Buddhism.
I also find it unlikely that Nichiren, or any other major teacher, considered non-Buddhist religions to essentially be provisional Buddhist teachings. Does that mean that those religions have no value? Of course not. Many teachings can still lead to rebirth in the higher realms. But being born in the higher realms isn't sufficient cause to make a connection to Buddhism and ultimately escape samsara. They are still just causes of rebirth in the higher realms of samsara.
