I looked at their site...seems like an interesting bunch thanks for the link. Compassion is something that is just plain reasonable. Even a psychopath could reason their way to being loving and kind, and the effects would be far more durable than someone with feelings believing they will be punished if they don't.

Ah the talk down approach.

People always switch to it when they can't convince you. If they can't convince you then you must be beneath them.

I simply think Buddha was spiritually developed enough to have recognized Christ if he had come face to face with him.

Buddhism cuts off the carnal mind. Christianity tries to overcome it by replacing it.

They are 2 different animals with similar results except in Christianity you are expected to take responsibility not detach yourself. Though admittedly Buddhists encourage acts of compassion.

Christians encourage commitment through co-operation.

Quote: "If the Holy Spirit can take over the subconscious with our consent and cooperation, then we have almighty Power working at the basis of our lives, then we can do anything we ought to do, go anywhere we ought to go, and be anything we ought to be." E. Stanley Jones

Jones a contemporary of Gandhi and Nehru was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in India among the Untouchables (Dalits): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Stanley_Jones

Also there is no promise of salvation in Buddhism. Those are some key differences and why reasonable is not so reasonable. If your carnal mind is still in control just how good is your reason? Can't ethics compromise reason then?

This seems to me to profoundly misunderstand not only buddhism but also christianity. In buddhist thinking you do NOT cut off the carnal mind. Say I have an inappropriate lust for someone that is not my wife...the buddhist way is to not see this situation as it really is. Buddhism is all about not deluding yourself, with the foolish perception of the "I" (the thought that we exist in our own right separate from our parts), that the potential of a relationship with an object of lust could possibly fill a hole in ourselves, or in many other ways that we can be deluded by biochemisty to not see things as they are.

So, the antidote for lust for a buddhist is to think of the object of the affection as they really are. This could mean looking beyond the physical aspects that are appealing to imagining the digestive process of that person and that it is no different from anyone else's.
Buddhist thinking is dedicated to reason and sober consideration. The Tibetan buddhist have debate courts that teach by having students discuss and vigorously and spiritedly defend their thought process.
If you have gotten the idea somewhere that buddhist are hedonists you are well well well off the mark sir. (Apart from maybe Tiger Woods of course.)

I have no idea who you were quoting there but it was not Jesus. When Jesus was challenged by the Pharisees, he was being baited and they were trying to trap him. What Jesus said was the fundamental thing about being christian is loving god with all your heart all your mind and all your spirit. When prompted for the second most important thing....he said you must love your neighbor as yourself. The second bit is very much buddhist. To love even your enemies, this is also the same. Having a reasoned faith like it talks about in James's letter...that is the same.

But, one of the important differences is the part where you attack buddhism which is one of the key reasons I rejected christianity. There is no god in buddhism. What you do is your responsibility. There is no redeemer. There is no sacrifice made by a man-god a long time ago that you can deviate from the path all you like then point to the crucifixion and say "well he already paid for it". All you have to do is say you are sorry and it is all better. It gets even worse by saying we all sin (or miss the target as "sin" is an archery term) all the time...indeed every day!! So you have every excuse to throw up your hands and say that it is written that you can never be perfect so what is the big deal.

Actually in many flavors of buddhism there is a promise of salvation...this is called nirvana. This is when you have completely stripped yourself of all the karma debt you have and can thus end the cyclical cycle of life. I don't buy it, but it does not mean that many do not believe it strongly.

So, bottom line I disagree completely with your assessments. In buddhism you are on your own and you must behave soberly in a way that will diminish the activities that are not loving and kind to yourself and others. In christianity you must be submissive and loving to your god, as well as your fellow man, and if you don't he will throw you in a fire seven times hotter than any on earth forever because he needs to separate the wheat from the chaff...but you sin every day and all you have to do is say you are sorry, mean it, and try not to do it anymore...but you are doomed to sin more...so good luck dying right after you said you were sorry. That just isn't for me...even if it were true...I would not want any part of it.

I remember previously having this discussion with Splendour. Buddhism does not promote detachment. If, anything, it encourages one to be fully present. Suffering is a result of not being present and acting in ways that do harm to oneself and others.

Buddhism cuts off nothing from the mind. Instead it encourages you to examine your thoughts and emotions closely. If anything, this scrutiny may bring you closer to understanding their underlying source.

The prominent Buddhist monk and founder of The Order of Interbeing, Thich Nhat Hanh teaches that no one is on their own and that there is an interconnectedness of all things. It really doesn't take a big leap to come to this realization once one takes the opportunity to observe it in action.

Salvation may not be available but according to the Buddhist teacher, Tara Brach, "we can seek refuge at any time when we choose to come home to the truth of who we are by connecting with our moment to moment experience, and by developing the capacity to be wakeful, giving and receptive in loving relationships". More of her teachings can be found at her website http://www.tarabrach.com/. For those who live in the Washington, DC area, she teaches classes weekly.

I will reiterate that I am not a Buddhist but I do find myself reading and listening to Buddhist teachings often.

Even if I have a misimpression of attachment/detachment.

There is still no mind of God to conform to in Buddhism. Everyone is simply picking his own way.

They also make no claim to supply salvation.

They are closer to being a philosophy than a religion and philosophies like to replace God's way with their own thinking.

quote: I remember previously having this discussion with Splendour. Buddhism does not promote detachment. If, anything, it encourages one to be fully present. Suffering is a result of not being present and acting in ways that do harm to oneself and others.


I don't even know your avatar name and you are a recent poster to this forum. Do you mean we had this discussion while you were under a different avatar name?

I don't really disagree that for many it is merely a philosophy, but for some it is indeed a religion. If you do not believe in a god there is no vice in substituting the opinion of a fictional character for reason....surely that must make sense even though you disagree no? The Nichomaccean Ethics are a philosophy...but it is not completely random..without a god a golden mean still is a device that can be used to explain a perspective on having balance and wisdom. The reader need not be entirely on their own.

Well you made a beautiful post above:

Look at this statement:

This seems to me to profoundly misunderstand not only buddhism but also christianity. In buddhist thinking you do NOT cut off the carnal mind. Say I have an inappropriate lust for someone that is not my wife...the buddhist way is to not see this situation as it really is. Buddhism is all about not deluding yourself, with the foolish perception of the "I" (the thought that we exist in our own right separate from our parts), that the potential of a relationship with an object of lust could possibly fill a hole in ourselves, or in many other ways that we can be deluded by biochemisty to not see things as they are.


I always have a soft spot for Buddhists. Most likely because they come up with a solution to the problem of selfishness and the overweening human ego and encourage good works.

But what you can't get around is there is No Salvation offered. Also when you compare Buddhism with Christianity you neglect to notice that Christianity performs a work in the human soul.

We are born again.

Buddhism increasingly seems dangerous to me because what it allows you to do is handle problems in this world that disturb your peace. But seeking peace is how people start to look for God.

So if you handle your problem before you find God you may have cut yourself off from his bigger promise of salvationary power unless you're a universalist.

I could never demote Christ so I could never be a full scale Buddhist, Yogi or Muslim.

I think he is the greatest to have ever walked the Earth. In Christianity the relationship aspect is even more important than the doctrinal one. Our peace and power repose in a person: Jesus Christ. Not in the dogma. The dogma is only how you come to know him.

I also think the greatest Christians stack up against all the greatest Buddhists quite nicely. If you start studying what some of the greatest Christians have done (I mean the Christians that managed to put down their carnal minds) it is incredible. Because Christ came to change the world and he does make his true followers commit to doing that like: Origen, the Wesley brothers, like E. Stanley Jones, like Albert Schweitzer, etc.

splendour, christians that read this thread are no doubt face-palming at how you're behaving. you don't even understand what you're arguing, and your main premise itt seems to be "christianity > buddism". that said, i hope you continue because im truly enjoying the destruction of each of your posts.

Yes, there is. It isn't called "salvation", but Nirvana is release from the round of rebirths in Samsara, this existence that is filled with suffering. That is the ultimate "salvation" to a Buddhist. But you're kind of correct in that it isn't "offered". The path that gets you there is offered, but you have to walk the path yourself.

Buddhists don't believe in a soul.

I'm not sure why you're trying to compare something that you know an awful lot about with something you know almost nothing about. I know a lot about poker, but I don't even know how to play backgammon, so what meaningful comparisons could I possibly make?

You don't think it is presumptuous to explain what Christians are thinking?

I mean you've never been born again have you?

What do you think the point of Christ coming down to Earth and dying on the Cross was all about? It wasn't just to forgive our sins but it was to empower us.

That's why what happened on the Day of Pentecost is just as important to study as the Resurrection.

Of course it takes some people time to grow up in their faith and assume responsibility. But that's what the spiritually mature do just like adults in the real world do: assume responsibility.

Maybe you could try comparing the paths. Is the Buddhist path as direct as the straight and narrow that Christians advocate?

Why is it that Buddhist countries practice sex-selective abortion more than Christian countries do?

How much influence has Buddhism had on Buddhist countries' surrounding values?

Isn't it more likely that Buddhists walk and stay on their own path rather than trying to change the world. That is unless you're a Nichiren and decide to elevate Japan over the rest of the world.

I think the spiritual realm is intermixed in the realm of ideas. If you can stop people from implementing good ideas then you affect world progress. Of course, the individual has to save himself first or he can't operate effectively in the world. Rather like mother nature. A lioness has to save herself/feed herself before her cubs because her cubs depend on her. Strange how religion really is like nature or evolution isn't it?

lol it gets better and better... popcorn.gif

Hehe...it is funny...you just presumed as an unregenrate man to speak for regenerate ones.

Okay, there are two basic divisions in Buddhism, Theravada and Mahayana. Theravada could be called orthodox Buddhism. They study the Pali Canon, the oldest records of what the historical Buddha taught. Mahayana, on the other hand, study the sutras, which appear several hundred years after the Buddha's death, and are considered apocryphal by most, if not all, Theravadins.

Anyway, within the Mahayana umbrella are several subdivisions, most notably Ch'an, Zen, Pure Land, and Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism). Within Tibetan Buddhism there are several more sects. The Dalai Lama is the leader of the Gelug sect. The Gelugs believe he is literally the 14th incarnation of the same mind, and it's a safe bet that he does as well. Another sect of Tibetan Buddhism believes something similar about the 17th Karmapa.

Most Theravadins will tell you this is not even possible because an unenlightened person cannot direct where his next rebirth takes place -- it happens automatically according to your karma. Theravada and Mahayana teachings differ on a number of things, and this is one of them. Mahayanists believe that a bodhisattva such as the Dalai Lama has done all that is necessary to reach Nirvana but is choosing to come back to save others, and can choose the next body that he is born into. Theravada teaches that when you reach Nirvana you are no longer reborn here at all.

Pure Land Buddhists believe you're reborn in a pure realm simply by chanting certain things, so they probably don't give the Dalai Lama much thought. As for Ch'an and Zen Buddhists, many of them don't believe in literal rebirth at all, and the ones that do probably don't care if the Dalai Lama's claims are true or not, or else they'd be Gelugs.

So opinions vary.

They're both pretty direct, though quite different. Buddha said, "here's the path to enlightenment" and Jesus said, "here's the path to heaven".

China has a lot of Buddhists. It is not a Buddhist country. It is a Communist country that only allows one child.

What is a surrounding value? If you're asking how much Buddhism influences the culture in Buddhist countries, the answer is "a lot", like any religion in any culture.

No.

You don't understand what Nichiren Buddhism is at all.

Yes there's a lot to study on the outside.

Still try studying the "mind" behind the religions.

When you study religions comparatively there's a risk in that you will end up apostate like Karen Armstrong that is unless you make the right internal observations.

E. Stanley Jones' observation is a doozy: All the world religions are man searching to find God while the Gospel is God searching for man.

Then again comparing religions could lean you toward universalism. I see the crazy-carnal mind nature running through mankind because it is in the world around us all the time and because one day I realized that just like the NT says man has a dual nature. My first revelation of this was my meditating on the Sermon on the Mount: "anger is murder in the heart" says Jesus. I took a look around me and realized quite a bit of the world was angry oftentimes for totally petty reasons confirming people are crazy or at least off balance. Of course, not everyone has an anger management problem. Somtimes it is something totally different that keeps them off balance or performing inadequately. Still this all confirms the nature of man. Ecclesiates 9:3 puts it like this:

3"This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead."

Just because Buddhism puts evil to sleep doesn't mean it kills it.

FYI: the Nichiren ideas led to the Japanese WWII aggression.

This is a ridiculous statement. Ultranationalism led to the Japanese WWII aggression. Nichiren was a 13th century monk who wrote about Buddhism, not taking over the world. Some of the priests in the Nichiren school did support the Japanese military government, and have been widely criticized for it. But many German Catholics supported the Nazis, does that make it correct to say "the Catholic ideas led to the Nazi WWII aggression"?

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nichiren

I thought it was an atheist country and thats the reason they practice sex-selective abortion. So no its not the atheists but Buddhists fault. Cool.

You haven't lived in a predominantly Buddhist society and many societies that contain Buddhists are not fully Buddhist.

And yes the Nichiren Sect was connected to the leaders of Japan who started WWII.

Norway's Dr. Galtung's analysis of Buddhism's 6 shortcomings:

1) Buddhism, because of its tolerant nature, sometimes endorses militarism and violence.

2) Buddhism tends to ignore structural violence in economic policy.

3) Buddhist clergy easily become self-righteous and removed from society.

4) Buddhism tends to curry favor with authority for financial rewards.

5) Buddhism easily resorts to the theory of karma as a pretext to accept defeat.

6) Buddhist clergy tend to become ritualistic and indulge in luxury.

The Anti-Buddhist Behavior of the Nichiren Shoshu Priesthood During World War II:

http://www.sokaspirit.org/resource/n...dhist-behavior

How do you know? And have you? And does it matter?

Right. Like Japan. Heard of Shinto? And some countries, like Japan, have more than one flavor of Buddhism. What's the point?

Right, just as the Catholic Church was connected to many of the Nazis. Does that mean the Catholic Church was responsible for Nazi aggression? Of course not. But yes, some Nichiren priests were involved with the militaristic Japanese government. Nichiren has been widely denounced for that, among other things, both historical and doctrinal. Some even consider Nichiren a cult.

But your statement that Nichiren was the reason for Japanese aggression in WWII is 100% wrong and you need to back away from it.

Dr Galtung's conclusions are his opinion and can certainly be argued both for and against.

You are way out of your depth here, Splendour. You don't know nearly enough about Buddhism to even be posting on this thread, unless you have a question to ask. This thread was started by someone interested in learning more about Buddhism, and you, a Christian who knows next to nothing about Buddhism, have posted more frequently than anyone else, including posting erroneous statements as if they were facts. You are not helping anyone get a better understanding of Buddhism here.

Back to topic, please.

How does tolerance endorse militarism and violence?
This is endemic to any person who feels they have been exalted by followers.

This, too, is not unique to Buddhism.
All karma refers to is is cause and effect. Almost all of which is outside of any individual's control.
This can be found in clergy of all denominations.

Hey no further arguments from me itt. I just thought the thread needed a little dose of reality.

I hope you don't leave. It would be very productive if you did not. Saying the thread needed a dose of reality is odd though. You were making statements that are just factually incorrect. If you are in a state in which you can change your mind, I think further conversation could be very fruitful. You are entitled to your own opinions obviously, just not your own facts.

I think you are a very kind and loving person. You feel comforted by the perspective that you have, and think there can obviously be only one way to find that kind of comfort. That is a very altruistic sort of perspective.

Surely you are not cut from the same cloth as those from the Westboro Baptist Church and just parrot a dogmatic party line and then just respond to reason with the perspective that everyone else are just idiots that don't get it.