Buddhism / Christianity ; are they compatible ?

[pokemons]

In theory, yes, In practice, no.

The reason why it could work in theory, is because you can shange either tennets of buddhism to fit christianity, or vice versa.

In practice, no because Christianity claims a monopoly on spirtuality, and truth.

Because their is the monopoly factor, one will take precedence over the other, and one will not be a honest buddhist, nor will you be a honest christian practising buddhist philoshopy.

Just my opinion.

The Essenes would have disagreed with you, and they probably created the Jesus story, plus if any man called Yehoshua existed we know he was a Nazarene who were a northern branch of The Essenes.

 

[mcgyver]

Just getting back to this after a sojourn getting ready for TS Issac (SW Florida...).

The question was (as I understood it): Is Christianity compatible with
Buddhism?, not "Are there certain things within Buddhism that are compatible with Christianity?"

Within just about any religious or philosophical system, IMO one can find certain things that will be "compatible"...however at the core, I stand by my assertion that Buddhism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

I also saw this:

One can not hold both as the one ultimate "truth", agreed.
but then again , one does not have to. at least , not according to buddha.

So then who is your point of authority, the Buddha or the Christ?

The Christ states that there is one ultimate truth...immutable and transcendent...found only in Him...with He Himself being the source of all truth.

If truth is in fact subjective and relative, then can there even be an ultimate truth? Who would determine what truth is? We ourselves?

Worse...if there is no ultimate truth then God is both capricious and unjust when He holds us accountable to His word...that there is only one way to the Father, and that through the Son.

Now if there is an ultimate truth, then by definition anything outside of that truth would be a lie...and we all must choose.

Interestingly, the Gnostic movement of the 1st and 2nd centuries (among whom Cerinthus was a major promoter) attempted to blend certain aspects of Stoic Philosophy with Christianity. Nothing new under the sun...and Gnosticism was rebuked by no less than the Apostle John (a contemporary in Ephesus) in a little letter known as 1 John.

Apparently John believed that there was one ultimate truth. ed!

 

[seekandlisten]

Seekandlisten, why am I not surprised to see you re-emerge on CFnet to weigh in on this topic? It's been about a year since you posted here. Did you find the thread on a search? You were always so uncomfortable with the Christian response to other world religions. I hope you're doing well.

Hey mike, it has been a while. No I don't do searches to find threads to reply in. I check in once in a while to this site to see what's interesting, mainly in the science section. I don't post much as, coming from a religious background, know where most conversations will end up.

You were always respectful and cordial in your misgivings with our position on Christianity's exclusivity to the Truth.

Even Jesus said "he that is not against us is for us."

Micah says, "For let all the peoples walk each one in the name of its god." He also speaks of a day when every one could sit under their own "fig tree" and not be afraid.

Jesus said He was the Way, Truth & Life for one thing. I can find a few contradictions right there with Buddhism. Can't you? How can that be true if everything is an illusion?

I personally try and look at original teachings from the teacher himself rather than those that come later. I actually agree with most of Jesus teachings but tend to find contradictions with later additions from others same goes for Buddha. There are only certain branches that teach everything is an illusion in the literal sense. The teachings I look at teach not that reality is an illusion but rather that our perception misleads us to believe we are separate from the elements that we are made of.

I also think Jesus was referring to leading by example rather then framing a belief system when he said that, in reference to the way, the truth and the life. He also said, in reference to Peter, that he would build his 'church' and evil wouldn't stand a chance against it. Clearly that could not be a literal reference to what we refer to as the Church could it? It has a history of exclusiveness, division, numerous atrocities, and the list goes on. Rather Jesus said, loosely quoted, 'it is not here nor there, but inside of you. Not so different from what Buddha taught?

I'm not as surprised to see non-Christians claim there is no absolute Truth, but I am taken aback when I see professed Christians make this statement.

Doesn't the Bible teach that you should search for truth like you would for treasure? That there would be those who are always seeing but never perceiving? In Taoist scriptures it make reference to a wagon wheel in saying that 30 spokes of the wheel unite but it is on the hole in the center that makes it useful. Buddha said that it is better to have traveled well then to arrive. Even the disciples who got to hear Jesus first hand had doubts and questions. Is not this 'absolute truth' you refer to you brought to you by men formed over the last 2000 years. I realize you believe that God himself guided it but is it wrong to search?.

cheers

 

[Cobblers Apprentice]

Hi everyone, as a new member, and as a professed "non-christian", I was immediately drawn to the "other religions" section. I have given this thread a brief run-through and would just like t o say a few things.

First, Buddhism is not one monolithic teaching that has remained constant for 2500 years. Its varieties are almost endless. Just as there is a very great difference between say, a Jehovah's Witness and a Liberal Catholic, between the spirituality of a Quaker and a Biblical Conservative, so there are wide differences within the Buddhist Faith. Really, what it comes down to is that each and every human being is unique - and dealing with what could be called the "block vote" often misses the point.

And I use the word "faith" because - though I may have missed it - I saw no reference anywhere to Pure Land Buddhism, which can be called the Buddhism of Faith/Grace. Many eminent Christian theologians are engaged in deep dialogue with the Pure Land tradition because of many apparent similarities between the two paths.

Anyway, that's all.

 

[Cobblers Apprentice]

Just a few more words for anyone interested. I've given the thread a read and a couple of things.

First, a few mentions of "truth" and of how there can be "only one". As I see it and have come to understand it, "truth" for Christianity is not so much a proposition, and not a creed as such (Thomas Merton has said that doctrines are more parameters set against total error than definitions of truth), but is centred upon a Person.

So it is a very real and pertinent question to ask exactly what we mean by "person" when Christian truth is considered. Which asks questions of ourselves, of just what we consider our own "self" to be.......the persona we seek to present to the world, often seeking to "justify" itself, or maybe something deeper known only to God.

From my own reading I have found that Buddhism, with its "anatta" (not-self) teaching, touches upon this in many relevant ways. And those who have sought the "true self", in Christianity, have often given expression to an experience of reality very close to that witnessed to in the Buddhist tradition. So much so that a Christian mystic such as St John of the Cross has been acknowledged as a Dharma brother by some Ch'an (zen) Buddhists.

Anyway, whatever, maybe there are ways of seeking communion that go beyond words, creeds and doctrinaire propositions.

True communication on the deepest level is more than a simple sharing of ideas, conceptual knowledge, or formulated truth...............And the deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. It is wordless, it is beyond words, and it is beyond speech, and it is beyond concept. Not that we discover a new unity. We discover an older unity. My dear brothers and sisters, we are already one. But we imagine that we are not. And what we have to recover is our original unity. What we have to be is what we are.

(Merton, in a speech given in Bangkok, on his Asian Pilgrimage)

The second thing was the mention of meditation, associating such with the "satanic". It seems this has been adequately answered by others here so there is not much to say. Only that there are many forms of meditation, and that they have been spoken of, and practiced, by many devout Christians such as John Main.

The third thing concerns the claim being made that this world is "unreal" as far as Buddhism is concerned. As was mentioned before, there are many expressions of the Buddhist faith, but as far as this world being "unreal" is concerned I think it needs to be stressed that much is "unreal" to many of us as we go about creating our own "realities". The Buddhist position, at least as I have come to understand it, is not so much that things are illusory, but that their separateness in the fabric of Reality is illusory. And this in a very real existential way, as expressed by a short story in the Jewish tradition.....

Whenever the rabbi of Sasov saw anyone's suffering he shared it so earnestly that the other's suffering became his own. Once someone expressed their astonishment at this capacity to share in another's troubles. "What do you mean 'share'?" said the rabbi. "It is my own sorrow; how can I help but suffer it?"

Last (sighs of relief..... ) the word "suffering" in Buddhism is a translation of dukkha (Pali) . It really needs to be understood in its full context before any claim is made that "Buddhism seeks to avoid suffering". Buddhism seeks to understand suffering. By "understanding" it, it can indeed be "overcome/avoided". But it has been pointed out often that if the Buddhist path is understood and pursued as a means of avoiding suffering we are "plunging headlong down a path of spiritual selfishness......that is diabolical."

 

[thightower]

To me John 14;6 explains it very clearly. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one come to the father exept through Jesus Christ our Lord. No other religion says that. There is only one truth and it is Jesus Christ.

 

[Cobblers Apprentice]

To me John 14;6 explains it very clearly. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one come to the father exept through Jesus Christ our Lord. No other religion says that. There is only one truth and it is Jesus Christ.

thightower, I think it is pretty obvious that no other religion says any such thing. What the Pali Canon of scripture does say is that it (Theravada Buddhism) is "The only way (or the one way)", and what the Qu'ran does say is that "outside of Islam there is no salvation". So we have the same "exclusive" claims.

What the Hindu Bhagavad Gita says is more hopeful for inter-faith dialogue, "Those who in faith worship any other God, because of their love they worship me, though not in the correct way." Which seems to point to the primacy of love, which St Paul also spoke of in 1 Corinthians 13.

I have no wish to get involved in Biblical interpretation, suffice to say that such apparently exclusive claims to truth as you quote are witnessed to and acknowledged by many devout Christians and yet understood in ways that open the way to genuine dialogue with other Faiths.

To quote Thomas Merton again......

The more I am able to affirm others, to say 'yes' to them in myself, by discovering them in myself and myself in them, the more real I am. I am fully real if my own heart says yes to everyone.

I will be a better Catholic, not if I can refute every shade of Protestantism, but if I can affirm the truth in it and still go further.

So, too, with the Muslims, the Hindu's, the Buddhists, etc. This does not mean syncretism, indifferentism, the vapid and careless friendliness that accepts everything by thinking of nothing. There is much that one cannot 'affirm' and 'accept,' but first one must say 'yes' where one really can.

 

[thightower]

I haven't studied alot on other religions, but christianity is the only one that forgives sin. Jesus taught that went he walked this earth. The only way Jesus could of forgiven sin is through the authority of God himself. Which is why i believe that Jesus is God himself taking on our human form.

 

[Mike]

thightower, I think it is pretty obvious that no other religion says any such thing. What the Pali Canon of scripture does say is that it (Theravada Buddhism) is "The only way (or the one way)", and what the Qu'ran does say is that "outside of Islam there is no salvation". So we have the same "exclusive" claims.

Wow. Word for word, I think you have the highest rate of name-dropping on the board! You are an encyclopedia, aren't you.

Welcome to CFnet!

I think you either misinterpreted the post you first responded to by thightower, or you just used it as a springboard for your most impressive list of names. His point cannot get lost. Christianity is unique because it's exclusive, because it's unique, because it's exclusive, because it's unique.

There are very many things that separate Christianity from all other world religions and philosophies, and this most certainly is true of any form of Buddhism.

So, back to thightower's point which seemed to get drowned out by all the names, He is the Way, Truth & Life, and no man may come to the Father through the philosophy of Buddhism.

 

[Cobblers Apprentice]

I think you either misinterpreted the post you first responded to by thightower

Hello Mike, as I see it I understood and interpreted the original post of thightower in the correct light. The post sought to claim that Christianity was the sole truth, and implied that a verse quoted from the Christian Bible was sufficient to demonstrate such.

My response was perfectly apt, in as much as I quoted from other books considered authoritative - even sacred and inspired - by their devotees, quotes that made much the same claim..i.e. that truth/salvation was exclusive to them.

I would assume that you do not accept such words as either definitive or conclusive. So why should any non-christian accept a quote from your own Scripture as being so?

That was the point made.

Perhaps you are confused between disagreement with a point of view, and understanding/misinterpreting a point of view?

I would just add that I have made other posts on this thread where various points have been raised and made. This is a discussion forum, I presume for some form of dialogue. If you have anything to say concerning the points I have made I will be pleased to read them. Thanks.

 

[Cobblers Apprentice]

I haven't studied alot on other religions, but christianity is the only one that forgives sin. Jesus taught that went he walked this earth. The only way Jesus could of forgiven sin is through the authority of God himself. Which is why i believe that Jesus is God himself taking on our human form.

thighpower, I address this to you in a perfectly friendly way.

The point i would seek to make is that if a particular religion sets the questions, then only that religion will provide the answers. That is how it works. If the condition of humanity is as claimed by the Buddhist tradition, then only its - the Buddhist - solution will address it. And so on.

I have found that to "pass over" into another faith (even faiths) and then to return to ones own can clarify our own beliefs and understanding, and even deepen it. And such has been the experience of many Christians.

If such is not for you, so be it.

All the best.

 

[Mike]

Hello Mike, as I see it I understood and interpreted the original post of thightower in the correct light. The post sought to claim that Christianity was the sole truth, and implied that a verse quoted from the Christian Bible was sufficient to demonstrate such.

From what I saw, his post was a "stand alone" statement of his belief. It was not directed at anyone, nor was it being stated as "proof" of anything. You inferred he implied something, and I disagree with your assessment.

I would assume that you do not accept such words as either definitive or conclusive. So why should any non-christian accept a quote from your own Scripture as being so?

We are on a Christian board, and we're happy to have other POV's expressed with courtesy (not to say you weren't courteous), but the ToS points to the SoF which in turn points to Scripture. Upon entering a Christian discussion board, there should be an understanding that we consider His Word to be the authority. To that end, we can make such statements as thightower made, because he wasn't trying to use it as "evidence" against you or anyone else. He was stating his position.

You can take or leave scripture when it's presented to you as our authority, but that shouldn't stop a believer from using it when they feel led to. It probably won't convince you if you come with the premise that it has no special value, but that's not on the believer. That's on you. We have no obligation to convince the ardent non-believer of anything. We are to share His Light with the world. If they've heard the Truth and continue to reject Christ, it's not prudent or wise to argue them into submission.

Personally, head-knowledge doesn't impress me as much as genuine authenticity. This isn't to say your litany of names, quotes, and references wouldn't be meaningful to the next guy, but it did seem like over-kill as a way of introducing your position to the participants in the this thread. I'm saying this as a participant in this thread as opposed to an admin. Sometimes members can come across as intellectually dishonest when they appear to explode on the scene with head knowledge.

We shouldn't take this thread in a direction it wasn't meant to go, though, so we shouldn't dwell on our personal discussion.

The original question was from the perspective of a Christian - Can Buddhism and Christianity be compatible? All POV's are welcome here, but it's irrelevant to me how a non-believer views this question. I don't expect them to value the differentiators that set Christianity apart, making Buddhism incompatible with our faith.

 

[Cobblers Apprentice]

From what I saw, his post was a "stand alone" statement of his belief. It was not directed at anyone, nor was it being stated as "proof" of anything. You inferred he implied something, and I disagree with your assessment.



We are on a Christian board, and we're happy to have other POV's expressed with courtesy (not to say you weren't courteous), but the ToS points to the SoF which in turn points to Scripture. Upon entering a Christian discussion board, there should be an understanding that we consider His Word to be the authority. To that end, we can make such statements as thightower made, because he wasn't trying to use it as "evidence" against you or anyone else. He was stating his position.

You can take or leave scripture when it's presented to you as our authority, but that shouldn't stop a believer from using it when they feel led to. It probably won't convince you if you come with the premise that it has no special value, but that's not on the believer. That's on you. We have no obligation to convince the ardent non-believer of anything. We are to share His Light with the world. If they've heard the Truth and continue to reject Christ, it's not prudent or wise to argue them into submission.

Personally, head-knowledge doesn't impress me as much as genuine authenticity. This isn't to say your litany of names, quotes, and references wouldn't be meaningful to the next guy, but it did seem like over-kill as a way of introducing your position to the participants in the this thread. I'm saying this as a participant in this thread as opposed to an admin. Sometimes members can come across as intellectually dishonest when they appear to explode on the scene with head knowledge.

We shouldn't take this thread in a direction it wasn't meant to go, though, so we shouldn't dwell on our personal discussion.

The original question was from the perspective of a Christian - Can Buddhism and Christianity be compatible? All POV's are welcome here, but it's irrelevant to me how a non-believer views this question. I don't expect them to value the differentiators that set Christianity apart, making Buddhism incompatible with our faith.

Hi mike, well we will leave aside the intention of others. On a discussion forum, I seek to discuss.

I'm sorry you should use such expressions as "exploding on the scene".................the fact is that I have engaged in thousands of discussions on various forums and it is quite an in-joke with many others that I indulge in quotes. Sadly, many things like this, and impressions given, could be sorted out over a quick drink at a local tavern!

And of course I would agree that a donkey with a library on its back remains a donkey.

Getting back on topic, to be honest I despair that many seem to equate their own brand of Christianity with Christian Truth itself. Here, obviously, Christian Truth seems often to be equated with Protestant Conservative Biblicism. In my own walk with the faith, such is not so. For me Christian Truth embraces all of Christianities expressions throughout the centuries, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and also the various Monastic Traditions and the mystical traditions. If you wish to consider that any such broad base suggests mere "head" knowledge and not commitment or experience of Christian truth, so be it.

And to add, that there is today in the wide depth of the Christian tradition, a profound openess to the spiritual understanding and insight found in the other faiths of our world. And that such openess is being shown by many very devout Christians whose fidelity to Christ is unquestionable. It seems to them, and I might say to myself, that it comes down to a question of just how wide and deep is the reality of Christ.

All the best.

 

[thightower]

Sounds like its a case of agree to disagree. My personal opinion is the Bible is the authority, the inerrant literal word of God. To me there is no other authority.

 

[Cobblers Apprentice]

Sounds like its a case of agree to disagree. My personal opinion is the Bible is the authority, the inerrant literal word of God. To me there is no other authority.

Fair enough.

But as this is a discussion forum where we are entitled to express our opinions, I would only say that it is obviously the personal opinion of over a billion Muslims that the Qu'ran is the authority, the inerrant literal word of God. To them there is no other authority.

So we have stalemate, and never the twain shall meet.

The best that can be hoped for is spoken of in the Qu'ran, (if I might quote such without being seen to be one of mere head knowledge.... ) that God may well have made us all of one faith, but choose not to. In the end we all have to return to God, when He shall explain. Until such time......."compete together in kindness"

 

[Cobblers Apprentice]

The Buddhist beliefs that everything is an illusion, there is no god, and being one with the universe is the ultimate goal, are in conflict with scripture over and over. Believers need to take this seriously.

Mike, seriously, the things you say here really need to be looked at.

"Everything is an illusion". This is just not so. The Buddhist teaching is more that the way we see and perceive the world, through the lens of a perceived "self" that looks upon itself as the centre of reality, is false and will lead to inevitable suffering; and not just for oneself, but for others. As I posted before, it is more that seeing things as totally separate in the fabric of reality, is illusory.

As far as "no God", there is a passage in the Udana - a part of the Theravada Canon of Scripture - that states....

There is, monks, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, monks, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

The fact is that in the Christian mystical tradition, which recognises the ineffable nature of God, and where the devout seek to experience God, one can see deep correspondences between such and the experience of many Buddhists. Not least in the life of love/compassion that flowers from the experience, that which in Christianity is called the fruits of the spirit, which Christ said were the signs of a "true prophet".

As far as "being one with the universe", this is more derived from the poem of the "westerner" Edwin Arnold, who spoke of the "dewdrop slipping into the shining sea" etc etc. Nice poetry but poor Buddhism! To read the Zen masters is to see such a claim is unfounded. Seriously.

I find it sad that such misrepresentation passes for "what needs to be taken seriously".

All the best.

 

[Mike]

One of the most discussed themes in Buddhism is that of the emptiness (sunyata) of form (matter), an important corollary of the transient and conditioned nature of phenomena. Reality is seen, ultimately, in Buddhism as a form of 'projection', resulting from the fruition (vipaka) of karmic seeds (sankharas). The precise nature of this 'illusion' that is the phenomenal universe is debated among different schools. For example;

• Some consider that the concept of the unreality of "reality" is confusing. They posit that, in Buddhism, the perceived reality is considered illusory not in the sense that reality is a fantasy or unreal, but that our perceptions and preconditions mislead us to believe that we are separate from the elements that we are made of. Reality, in Buddhist thought, would be described as the manifestation of karma[citation needed].

• Other schools of thought in Buddhism (e.g., Dzogchen), consider perceived reality literally unreal. As a prominent contemporary teacher puts it: "In a real sense, all the visions that we see in our lifetime are like a big dream [...]".[1] In this context, the term 'visions' denotes not only visual perceptions, but appearances perceived through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations, and operations on received mental objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism

CA, I believe you are minimizing the prominence of illusion in the Buddhist philosophy.

Your attempts to bridge this philosophy with Christianity are falling short in large part due to your distortion of scripture.

Galatians 5:23-25 talks about the fruits of the spirit. In Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus is talking about something similar but different. These are not the same as the fruits of the spirit. He is referring to the conduct of their lives and the fulfillment of their prophecies as with Deuteronomy 18:20.

Regardless, the points already discussed in this thread already cover the differences that make Buddhism incompatible with Christianity. At the very heart of Christianity is the surrender of oneself to Jesus Christ. Not from your perspective, but from the Christian's perspective are these two views mutually exclusive. They cannot be merged. Many have tried; none have succeeded.

I do appreciate your perspective as a Buddhist. Your insight has value. However, I believe you missed my point in my last post about this being an issue that the Christian needs to work through. Your perspective is relevant insomuch as it explains your view, but that has no impact in carrying the Christian view.

By the way, could you explain what you meant by "Christian mystical tradition"?

Thank you.

 

[Cobblers Apprentice]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism

CA, I believe you are minimizing the prominence of illusion in the Buddhist philosophy.

Your attempts to bridge this philosophy with Christianity are falling short in large part due to your distortion of scripture.

Galatians 5:23-25 talks about the fruits of the spirit. In Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus is talking about something similar but different. These are not the same as the fruits of the spirit. He is referring to the conduct of their lives and the fulfillment of their prophecies as with Deuteronomy 18:20.

Regardless, the points already discussed in this thread already cover the differences that make Buddhism incompatible with Christianity. At the very heart of Christianity is the surrender of oneself to Jesus Christ. Not from your perspective, but from the Christian's perspective are these two views mutually exclusive. They cannot be merged. Many have tried; none have succeeded.

I do appreciate your perspective as a Buddhist. Your insight has value. However, I believe you missed my point in my last post about this being an issue that the Christian needs to work through. Your perspective is relevant insomuch as it explains your view, but that has no impact in carrying the Christian view.

By the way, could you explain what you meant by "Christian mystical tradition"?

Thank you.

Mike, first, I am no more "a Buddhist" than I am "a Christian". Secondly, as I said in my very first post on this thread, Buddhism is not just one monolithic teaching that has remained constant for 2500 years. As you demonstrate above, if it is wished to speak of "illusion" then certain teachings can be referred to and quoted to "prove" a point.

As far as "distortion" of scripture, such would be your own interpretation. However, the main point I made, that a true love/compassion towards all has indeed flowered in the hearts and minds of those within the Buddhist Faith, is untouched - at least for me - by you putting the words of Christ into "context".

My main point would be that both Christianity and Buddhism are living faiths. That the spirit will lead into "all truth" does not mean that "all truth" has been found or has been given to just one denomination of the Christian Tradition, whether it be Catholic, Protestant (with all its varieties) or the Eastern Orthodox.

The point I am making is that many devout Christians are finding that an exploration of another Faith, when done with sensitivity, vulnerabiltiy, and without setting preconditions of non-compatibility, has led them to a deepening of their own Faith.

This has often gone hand in hand with a knowledge of the Christian mystical tradition, by which I mean the lives and writings of those such as Meister Eckhart, St John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, John Tauler and Jacob Boehme. When such give voice to their experience of God, which has flowered within their lives in love and empathy towards their fellow human beings, the way they seek to express the ineffable reality of the Divine has great correspondence with the experience, and indeed the writings, of many Buddhists throughout the centuries. One has only to read them, reflect upon them and contemplate them, and also, seek ones own "salvation".

This, nonwithstanding "incompatibility" when texts/scriptures are put side by side. Fortunately the Living Word is often outside of such.

All the best

 

[Cobblers Apprentice]

Just as a further addition to the various thoughts and opinions expressed on this thread, a few things drawn from the insight of the Catholic monk Thomas Merton. Merton sought to emphasise that the greatest obstacle to mutual understanding between Christianity and Buddhism lies in the Western tendency to focus not on the Buddhist experience, which is essential, but on the explanation, which more often than not is regarded as completely trivial and even misleading.

This is in many ways the complete opposite of Christianity, which begins with revelation, a communication in words and statements, and asks for the believers acceptance of the truth of such statements. Therefore there can be in Christianity a preoccupation with such statements, with a precise understanding of their exact meaning, and often a condemnation of false interpretations. As Merton has said....."At times this concern has been exaggerated almost to the point of an obsession, accompanied by arbitrary and fanatical insistence on hairsplitting distinctions and the purest niceties of theological detail."

But as Merton goes on to say,all this often makes us lose sight of the heart of the Christian Faith, which is the living experience of unity with Christ which "far transcends all conceptual formulations."

Two points. One, Merton's fidelity to Christ and reliance upon the grace and mercy of God is unquestionable to those who know his writings and the story of his life, yet he explored the experience of those of the Buddhist faith with openess, to the point where he could call the Buddhist D.T.Suzuku a brother with whom he shared all that was true and real.

Second, nothing I attempt to argue for here is for academic purposes, nor to be seen to be "right". It is spoken of purely in the context of the desperately sad history of the conflict between the various faiths, which surely must stop.

 

[ReformedYsocial]

You have to invest time and money in order to properly study the religion ... Buddhism and Christianity are somewhat congruent - but not identical.