Post Reply
Page 3 of 10  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Buddhist similarities with Christianity
2 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 5:35AM #21
Bob0
Posts: 484
IDBC:


I had to take time to meditate on your posts. Quite frankly they have me somewhat confused. I haven't been able to get past the first two bits of misinformation.


So if I am ignorant and un-informed, or "mis-informed" then it is not my fault and so is Joesph Campbell.


But you posted it. You think Joseph Campbell is responsible for your post? Joseph is responsible for his karma, you are responsible for yours.


Both Christianity and Buddhism are similar in the theory that the founders of there religions were born of virgins.


I tend to doubt that he no more believed that Buddha was born of a virgin than he believed that Jesus was born of a virgin. I am skeptical that he thought they were "historically" true


So you don't believe it is true but you posted it as a theory of Buddhism, when in fact it is a myth put forth by a Catholic who happens to teach about mythology? I believe that unlike Buddhists, Christians tend to take that virgin birth very seriously. Possibly you could check with the Pope, but I think I'm right on this point. Do you know of any Sutta that claims the virgin birth of Gautama Buddha? I don't know any Buddhists, either Pure Land, Zen, or Theravada that believes this. I'd have to ask Bob the L if Nichiren Buddhists believe in this. I've heard lots of inflated stories of The Buddha's birth and early life but never the virgin birth story till B-net. Still think it is a similarity?


It seems me that one thing that both Christianity and Buddhism have in common is dualism.


Enough of this. Lets move on to dualism. Again I wouldn't be surprised if some non Buddhist posted conflicting information on Wickipedia. It is my understanding that Christianity takes dualism very seriously. Good-bad, sin-virtue, heaven-hell. Often Buddhists mistakenly get caught up in the same mistake of dualism. I think a lot of it comes from the Judeo-Christian dominated society in the West. Growing up in the West we are trained to think like this. But one of the three marks of Buddhism is impermanence. Another is karma. If one understands that all form is empty, (has no permanent nature) is constantly changing and is constantly altered by the interdependent actions and reactions of others permeating the universe then one would know that the certainty of dualism is impossible. One likely won't live till endless time to see the totality of karma playing out nor can we accurately predict how all the billions and billions of reactions will affect the universe. This is how we believe the world is despite what somebody posts on Wickipedia.  Still think it is a similarity?


But....if you insist that you will use Wickipedia for all your Buddhist references you will seem quite strange to people who have studied and know the dharma. And further discussions will simply be a waste of time. I'm not the first Buddhist to point out the misstatements of Wickipedia on Buddhism but possibly you know better..... Or possibly it is not Buddhism you are interested in but argumentation and more importantly, winning despite the validly of your arguments. If it's that important, you win. But you statement of similarities is incorrect.


Wishing you small tranquil days,


Bob
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 4:37PM #22
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Apr 10, 2012 -- 5:35AM, Bob0 wrote:


IDBC:


I had to take time to meditate on your posts. Quite frankly they have me somewhat confused. I haven't been able to get past the first two bits of misinformation.


So if I am ignorant and un-informed, or "mis-informed" then it is not my fault and so is Joesph Campbell.


But you posted it. You think Joseph Campbell is responsible for your post? Joseph is responsible for his karma, you are responsible for yours.


Both Christianity and Buddhism are similar in the theory that the founders of there religions were born of virgins.


I tend to doubt that he no more believed that Buddha was born of a virgin than he believed that Jesus was born of a virgin. I am skeptical that he thought they were "historically" true


So you don't believe it is true but you posted it as a theory of Buddhism, when in fact it is a myth put forth by a Catholic who happens to teach about mythology? I believe that unlike Buddhists, Christians tend to take that virgin birth very seriously. Possibly you could check with the Pope, but I think I'm right on this point. Do you know of any Sutta that claims the virgin birth of Gautama Buddha? I don't know any Buddhists, either Pure Land, Zen, or Theravada that believes this. I'd have to ask Bob the L if Nichiren Buddhists believe in this. I've heard lots of inflated stories of The Buddha's birth and early life but never the virgin birth story till B-net. Still think it is a similarity?


It seems me that one thing that both Christianity and Buddhism have in common is dualism.


Enough of this. Lets move on to dualism. Again I wouldn't be surprised if some non Buddhist posted conflicting information on Wickipedia. It is my understanding that Christianity takes dualism very seriously. Good-bad, sin-virtue, heaven-hell. Often Buddhists mistakenly get caught up in the same mistake of dualism. I think a lot of it comes from the Judeo-Christian dominated society in the West. Growing up in the West we are trained to think like this. But one of the three marks of Buddhism is impermanence. Another is karma. If one understands that all form is empty, (has no permanent nature) is constantly changing and is constantly altered by the interdependent actions and reactions of others permeating the universe then one would know that the certainty of dualism is impossible. One likely won't live till endless time to see the totality of karma playing out nor can we accurately predict how all the billions and billions of reactions will affect the universe. This is how we believe the world is despite what somebody posts on Wickipedia.  Still think it is a similarity?


But....if you insist that you will use Wickipedia for all your Buddhist references you will seem quite strange to people who have studied and know the dharma. And further discussions will simply be a waste of time. I'm not the first Buddhist to point out the misstatements of Wickipedia on Buddhism but possibly you know better..... Or possibly it is not Buddhism you are interested in but argumentation and more importantly, winning despite the validly of your arguments. If it's that important, you win. But you statement of similarities is incorrect.


Wishing you small tranquil days,


Bob



Hi Bob,


First, I wouldn't comment if you hadn't asked; as we see on bnet, and this board-many people act like animals, very obnoxious, self centered, self righteous, etc.   But only ONE poster has gone so far as to be on my block list.... just one.  Which, says something, since it is clear I can handle many types of intended insults without batting an eye.  I am not tolerant on misinterpretations of Buddhism, but I am very tolerant of people in general..., they have to go pretty far for me to erase them from my bnet world.  Despite that, since you asked me to comment I will:


I agree with 95% of what you said.  I never heard any virgin bith story until Bnet.  So either I'm ignorant of my own belief that I've studied for 20 years.... or somebody is choosing sources to fulfill a motivation that is less than an interest in honest dialog among equals on the nature of Buddhism.


There is nothing special, or unique about the historical Buddha, he was just a man.  However, what is amazing about him is that he accomplished the goal of life:  He woke up.  He was an awakened human being, he was aware of reality.  So, since we all have that potential, again, there is nothing special or unique about him as far as some potential quality he had that someone else does not.  We all have it, even the monotheists lol.  


Nobody is on a pedestal, nor is any man worthy of worship.  Anyone who gives any type of elevated status to The Buddha, completely misses the core teachings of Buddhism as such a thing destroys his most important teachings.  As such, only a non-Buddhist could make such a statement from the perspective of my sect.  And any idiot can write a book and get published-it doesn't make their argument true or even well researched.  But I question why someone would try to learn ABOUT Buddhism from a book written by a non-Buddhist, I question such a person's ability to use reason as well as their interest in truth (memo to a few people on this board).


The only thing I disagreed with Bob0 was the "end of time statement".  Indeed, impermenance is the reality.  So any concept of a "stopping point" violates this principle, so this cycle of birth and death is eternal, and never becoming static (permanent) as "end of time" would suggest to me..  Life/death has no beginning, and no end, for it is an endless cycle, and all three time periods (past, present, future) are contained in the present-thus infinity is hidden in the moment.  That's the only thing you said that runs contrary to the teaching of Nichiren Daishonin.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 9:00PM #23
IDBC
Posts: 4,475

Howdy Bob 


Apr 10, 2012 -- 5:35AM, Bob0 wrote:




I had to take time to meditate on your posts. Quite frankly they have me somewhat confused. I haven't been able to get past the first two bits of misinformation.



 

Information and misinformation. Truth and falisty.  Understanding and misunderstanding. 

 

Sounds like dualism to me.  


So if I am ignorant and un-informed, or "mis-informed" then it is not my fault and so is Joesph Campbell.


Apr 10, 2012 -- 5:35AM, Bob0 wrote:


 

But you posted it. You think Joseph Campbell is responsible for your post? Joseph is responsible for his karma, you are responsible for yours. [/qoute]

 

Then I will accept the karma for my posting.  And I've been told that all form is empty, (has no permanent nature) is constantly changing and is constantly altered by the interdependent actions and reactions of others permeating the universe. If one accepts or believes my posts that is their responsibility and they must accept the responsiblity for accepting it and the karma that comes with accepting it. 


Both Christianity and Buddhism are similar in the theory that the founders of there religions were born of virgins.


I tend to doubt that he no more believed that Buddha was born of a virgin than he believed that Jesus was born of a virgin. I am skeptical that he thought they were "historically" true



Apr 10, 2012 -- 5:35AM, Bob0 wrote:


 


So you don't believe it is true but you posted it as a theory of Buddhism, when in fact it is a myth put forth by a Catholic who happens to teach about mythology?



 

I don't think it is historically true that Buddha was born of a virgin, that he was "miracously concieved".   

 

But I do think that it is true that the belief-theory-myth of the miraclous conception of Buddha does exist and that Buddhist believe in the myth-theory.   

 

The myth-belief-theory that Jesus was miracously concieved and does exist.   It is a fact that the myth-belief does exist.     I know  that the myth-belief does exist, but I do not believe it is an historical fact. 

 

It is an historical fact that the myth-belief that the conception of Jesus was miraculous but I don't believe it is an historical fact.  

 

Joseph Campbell was raised as a Catholic. 

 

However he did stop practicing the Catholic religion and reverted to the true , or differnt religion, Hinduism. 

 

From all the lectures and books I have read he had nothing but respect for Buddha and Buddhism.  He never said anything negative against either. 

 

So fact it is a myth put forth by an Ex Catholic, and Hindu until he dies  who taugh  about mythology and he did teach it as a Buddhist myth, and NOT an historical fact. 

 

 



 

 

Apr 10, 2012 -- 5:35AM, Bob0 wrote:


 


I believe that unlike Buddhists, Christians tend to take that virgin birth very seriously. Possibly you could check with the Pope, but I think I'm right on this point. Do you know of any Sutta that claims the virgin birth of Gautama Buddha? I don't know any Buddhists, either Pure Land, Zen, or Theravada that believes this. I'd have to ask Bob the L if Nichiren Buddhists believe in this. I've heard lots of inflated stories of The Buddha's birth and early life but never the virgin birth story till B-net. Still think it is a similarity?[/quote[

 

I think it is a fact that Christians tend to take Jesus much more seriously than those Buddhist who belief the myth of Buddha's miracle conception as an historical fact.  

 

The miracle conception is much, much more important to Christians than it is to Buddhists.  It is a core belief of Chrisitanity and Chrisitans.   I doubt very much that it is as important to those Buddhists who do believe in the myth of Buddha's miracle conception. 


It seems me that one thing that both Christianity and Buddhism have in common is dualism.


quote author=33656447 post=518445389]

 

 

Enough of this. Lets move on to dualism. Again I wouldn't be surprised if some non Buddhist posted conflicting information on Wickipedia.




I also not suprised that there is conflicting information on Wickedpedia.   It does have two sides.  And since there is two sides then there is dualism.  Or at least apparent-illusionary dualism.  

 

What I am suprised about is your amazing, dare I say it?  Miraculous ability or perhaps assumption to tell that either side was written by Non_Buddhist.  

 


 

 

quote author=33656447 post=518445389]


It is my understanding that Christianity takes dualism very seriously. Good-bad, sin-virtue, heaven-hell. Often Buddhists mistakenly get caught up in the same mistake of dualism. I think a lot of it comes from the Judeo-Christian dominated society in the West. Growing up in the West we are trained to think like this.



 

It is also my understanding that Chrisitanity takes dualisim very seriously.  

 

If Buddhists are mistaken it is their responibility to correct the mistake.  They are responsible for the karma that results from their not correcting the mistake.  

 

We in the West and They in the East.  DUALISM or apparent-illusionary DUALISM. 

 

Even if it is true tha WE in the West, unlike THEY in the East or trained by a dominate Judeo-Christian dominated society,  unlike They in the East which is not trained by a society but is trained by a dominanate Muslim societies which are just as dualistic as  Western Judeo Christian dominate socieites it is still our responsiblity to break the training and the karma.  

 

I am very skeptical of the East-West duality.   I think it is an illusion and those who refer to this illusion must take on the responsiblity and the karma that results.   

 

 

 


quote author=33656447 post=518445389]


 But one of the three marks of Buddhism is impermanence.



 

And they East-West duality is impermanent..  

 

quote author=33656447 post=518445389]


 Another is karma.[/quorw]

 

Those who refer to the East-West duality will take on the responsibity and the karma for maintaing the illusion of East-West, or WE-THEY duality. 

 

Apr 10, 2012 -- 5:35AM, Bob0 wrote:

 


 

 If one understands that all form is empty, (has no permanent nature) is constantly changing and is constantly altered by the interdependent actions and reactions of others permeating the universe then one would know that the certainty of dualism is impossible. One likely won't live till endless time to see the totality of karma playing out nor can we accurately predict how all the billions and billions of reactions will affect the universe. This is how we believe the world is despite what somebody posts on Wickipedia.  Still think it is a similarity?



 

I do believe and understand that I will not exist forever.   So far as I am concerned once I die, once my brain is not active that is it.   There is total annhilation of my concisouness.  I cease to exist as a sentient being.   I am a harcore materilist.    Whatever I think, believe or feel is anhilatied once my body ceases to have life.   I totally agree that I will not live to see the totality of whatever karma I generated play out.   

 

I do disagree with whoever in Wickedpedia wether Buddhist or Non-Buddhists that thinks or believes differently. 



Apr 10, 2012 -- 5:35AM, Bob0 wrote:




But....if you insist that you will use Wickipedia for all your Buddhist references you will seem quite strange to people who have studied and know the dharma.



 

If you or other have a problem with my using Wikipedia as a reference and think I am strange for doing so that is fine with me.  I've already explained why I use Wikipedia.   I will not think you to be strange if you use a different source.  

 

 

quote author=33656447 post=518445389]


And further discussions will simply be a waste of time. I'm not the first Buddhist to point out the misstatements of Wickipedia on Buddhism but possibly you know better..... Or possibly it is not Buddhism you are interested in but argumentation and more importantly, winning despite the validly of your arguments. If it's that important, you win. But you statement of similarities is incorrect.


 If you or other Buddhists think that there are think the statements in Wikipedia are not correct then you can say why they are not correct and use evidence to support why.  

 

I would also add that if you think that the statements in Wikipedia are not correct then you or any other Buddhist  can edit, change, correct the statements in Wikipedia



Hi Bob,


First, I wouldn't comment if you hadn't asked; as we see on bnet, and this board-many people act like animals, very obnoxious, self centered, self righteous, etc.   But only ONE poster has gone so far as to be on my block list.... just one.  Which, says something, since it is clear I can handle many types of intended insults without batting an eye.  I am not tolerant on misinterpretations of Buddhism, but I am very tolerant of people in general..., they have to go pretty far for me to erase them from my bnet world.  Despite that, since you asked me to comment I will:


I agree with 95% of what you said.  I never heard any virgin bith story until Bnet.  So either I'm ignorant of my own belief that I've studied for 20 years.... or somebody is choosing sources to fulfill a motivation that is less than an interest in honest dialog among equals on the nature of Buddhism.


There is nothing special, or unique about the historical Buddha, he was just a man.  However, what is amazing about him is that he accomplished the goal of life:  He woke up.  He was an awakened human being, he was aware of reality.  So, since we all have that potential, again, there is nothing special or unique about him as far as some potential quality he had that someone else does not.  We all have it, even the monotheists lol.  


Nobody is on a pedestal, nor is any man worthy of worship.  Anyone who gives any type of elevated status to The Buddha, completely misses the core teachings of Buddhism as such a thing destroys his most important teachings.  As such, only a non-Buddhist could make such a statement from the perspective of my sect.  And any idiot can write a book and get published-it doesn't make their argument true or even well researched.  But I question why someone would try to learn ABOUT Buddhism from a book written by a non-Buddhist, I question such a person's ability to use reason as well as their interest in truth (memo to a few people on this board).


The only thing I disagreed with Bob0 was the "end of time statement".  Indeed, impermenance is the reality.  So any concept of a "stopping point" violates this principle, so this cycle of birth and death is eternal, and never becoming static (permanent) as "end of time" would suggest to me..  Life/death has no beginning, and no end, for it is an endless cycle, and all three time periods (past, present, future) are contained in the present-thus infinity is hidden in the moment.  That's the only thing you said that runs contrary to the teaching of Nichiren Daishonin.





I can certainly understand the statement that there are people  "act like animals, very obnoxious, self centered, self righteous, etc."  But it does sound like an angry statement and I think that anger is frowned upon in Buddhism.  I agree that any idiot can write a book.  Even an idiot who is a Buddhist.   The reason that I would read a book or other source for learning about Buddhism by a Non-Buddhist is to get a different perspective about Buddhism.   I do not have a problem with learning about Buddhism from a Hindu.   However I do read and learn about Buddhism from Buddhist too.   I would question those who think that a person who wants to learn about Buddhism should read or learn about Buddhism ONLY from a Buddhist.  Especially if it is true that we are all teachers and students.  


 


 


 


 


 

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 9:33PM #24
Bob0
Posts: 484
Bob:


It is always pleasant to see your reasoned Buddhist responses in this B-net sea of misinformation. Actually the Buddhists who regularity post here all seem to have a good handle on the Dharma despite our varied backgrounds.


The only thing I disagreed with Bob0 was the "end of time statement".


Possibly I should have added a few more qualifiers. My point was that whether the universe is finite or infinite, that dualism is invalid by Buddhist understanding of karma, interdependence and impermanence.  Actually we neither agree nor disagree. I have no position on the universe being finite or infinite. The Buddha took no position when asked if the cosmos was infinite or finite. I'll spare you the links. You've seen me post them many times. You might be right. The Christians might be right. Actually, our disagreement is whether it is necessary to have a position on the end of time. And I can live with that.



Indeed, impermenance is the reality. So any concept of a "stopping point" violates this principle, so this cycle of birth and death is eternal, and never becoming static (permanent) as "end of time" would suggest to me..


Let me ask you, is this a statement of faith? I would offer, yes it is. I laugh because this is where the Buddhist debate originates. I would offer that the Mahayana is faith based and Theravada is practice based. But...I know several Theravada who are faith based and have read about Mahayana who are practice based. Both are valid and both seem to work depending on the individual. It took me a long time to understand this. And you, my friend, have been a big help in digesting this wisdom.



As always it is good to see your posts.

Wishing you small tranquil days,

Bob
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 9:49PM #25
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Bob0, Absolutely, it's a belief.  Also-I don't assume that physical reality is equal to the "universe", as I simply see it (the latter) as "the macrocosm", in other words, just another life form-so to me, yes it too has a birth and death, and follows an endless cycle.  Also faith based.


And for me-it's both.  Faith cannot deepen or be lived without practice.  And practice is meaningless without faith (wouldn't practice be empty and meaningless, and thus unproductive really, without faith?).  So from the Nichiren standpoint, it's really "faith, practice, study".  That is, practice and study arouse and deepen faith.  Faith in turn leads to awakening and furthers practice and study.  For example... after meditating, a difficult concept I am studying will make sense where prior it baffled me...  But I would say these "pure faith" issues like "endless life and death cycle" are not important to my practice if that helps-just a theoretical view of interest perhaps.


And yes, I wasn't trying to add emphasis to where I saw a disagreement, but rather clarifying my view (and this lead to you clarifying yours) that didn't seem to quite fit.  The agreements, which was nearly all of it, was well enough said that I didn't need to comment much-just agree lol.  So yes, pleasee don't take that as nitpicking but rather a nod to nearly all of it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 9:54PM #26
Bob0
Posts: 484
Information and misinformation. Truth and falisty.  Understanding and misunderstanding. 


Sounds like dualism to me.  

 


If you say a cat is a dog. that isn't dualism. That's misinformation. If Joseph Campbell says it's true, it is still misinformation.




If you say that Pope is female. That isn't dualism. It's misinformation. If Joseph Campbell says it's true, it is still misinformation.




If you say that Buddhism teaches dualism or a virgin birth, that isn't dualism. It's misinformation. If Joseph Campbell says it's true, it is still misinformation.




But I do think that it is true that the belief-theory-myth of the miraclous conception of Buddha does exist and that Buddhist believe in the myth-theory.




Now you are quibbling and using AKA logic. This is not a Buddhist teaching. Any Buddhist who teaches this would be in a most steep minority. It didn't come from the Buddha's mouth. The words you are struggling for are: "I'm sorry. I was wrong." You can do it and with your admission the tone of this thread will improve immediately.




Bob

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 10, 2012 - 10:06PM #27
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Also-I need to clarify-there are 2 types of faith here.  One is blind (I have no proof, and it is irrelevant to my practice) such as this 'endless cycle' claim.  


But normally when I say "faith" I mean in the relevant way-that is faith in Buddhism, ie the practice.  That faith is not blind and it applies to this world, right now and is the basis of my practice.  That is what I mean by "practice is empty without faith".  

I was obvious I needed to clarify after the same word came in, having 2 meanings. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 1:55AM #28
Aka_me
Posts: 12,088



there has to be a way to figure out what texts they are referring to.



ever notice the same halo around Buddha


which Jesus is portrayed as having

there can be no meaning or value to life, in a universe devoid of meaning and value... because the moment those who knew you are gone, you will never have existed at all.

if you see anyone not screaming at the top of their lungs THE SKY IS FALLING BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING! then for prophet Gore's sake help them see the light that doing so is the only means we have of getting off fossil fuel.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 2:39AM #29
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Apr 11, 2012 -- 1:55AM, Aka_me wrote:




there has to be a way to figure out what texts they are referring to.



ever notice the same halo around Buddha


which Jesus is portrayed as having




Cats and dogs both have fur.  By using the "reasoning" and so called types and shallow comparisons used by AKA as benchmarks, therefore cats and dogs are the same.  


We get you, but it's a bit ridiculous and insulting to tell eskimos you want to not only sell them ice, but further to show them plastic, calling it "ice".  It's like a bad song on the radio-they should quit playing it if nobody listens or sees any merit in the song....

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 2:42AM #30
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Hey Bob0 did you know that Charles Dickens and Stephen King are both writing about the same thing?  No, it's true:  Both of them use trees turned into paper and put words on them, then bind them in a book.  You'll also find that for example there is a dog in both Oliver Twist and in Cujo.  Therefore, the content, plot, story, characters, and point of each story inside is the same.  And King is actually the reincarnation of Dickens.  Yep, it's true.


Didn't you ever notice that?  It's obvious.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 10  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook