Apr 21, 2012 -- 3:14PM, Bob0 wrote:

Yes Buddhism falls short of providing a fictional fabricated final destination such as heaven and Buddhism falls short of offering eternal life. This is what the Buddha taught, long before Christianity was invented"

"Potthapada, it's as if a man at a crossroads were to build a staircase for ascending to a palace, and other people were to say to him, 'Well, my good man, this palace for which you are building a staircase: do you know whether it's east, west, north, or south of here? Whether it's high, low, or in between?' and, when asked this, he would say, 'No.' Then they would say to him, 'So you don't know or see the palace for which you are building a staircase?' When asked this, he would say, 'Yes.'

"So what do you think, Potthapada — when this is the case, don't the words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?"

Potthapada Sutta www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.0...

You keep building that staircase. Just don't ask the Buddhists to blindly climb with you as a matter of faith.

it could also be argued that the words of the Buddha were spoken in such a way as to have the greatest impact on the "state of being" for the people within vocal hearing distance (judging by the fact that the Buddha didn't pen his words ensuring later generations received the exact original teachings).

and who were the people within hearing distance?

polytheists who worshipped numerous different gods, based on zero understanding of natural phenomenon like rain and storms. the audiences' "greatest need" was to get off their dependence to non-existent rain gods, thunder gods, and the like.

whereas Jesus said "I come not but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel"... implying a specific intended audience, thereby supposing an intended "greatest need" of THAT audience, and a specific means of delivering the greatest impact for THAT audience. again no teachings penned to ensure later generations recieved exact original teachings).

so if an adherent of either religion is not capable of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture for BOTH religions... to understand what similarities exist,

then what kind of a student can they actually call themselves?

AKA said:"it could also be argued that the words of the Buddha were spoken in such a way as to have the greatest impact on the "state of being" for the people within vocal hearing distance (judging by the fact that the Buddha didn't pen his words ensuring later generations received the exact original teachings)"

 >>>>>  It could, but it's a pretty ignorant argument with no real point.

"and who were the people within hearing distance?"

polytheists who worshipped numerous different gods, based on zero understanding of natural phenomenon like rain and storms. the audiences' "greatest need" was to get off their dependence to non-existent rain gods, thunder gods, and the like.t

     >>>>You demonstrate a very shallow understanding of Buddhism and Indian culture. You may wish to read something about the subject. Compared to the superstitious  goatherds of Palestine, the India of Buddha's time had a civilization of great sophistication, culture and learning

whereas Jesus said "I come not but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel"... implying a specific intended audience, thereby supposing an intended "greatest need" of THAT audience, and a specific means of delivering the greatest impact for THAT audience. again no teachings penned to ensure later generations recieved exact original teachings).

      >>> The Buddha's doctrine was meant to guide all sentient beings to cessation of suffering. I'd say that is a rather specific and much larger audience than Jesus ministered to. The Buddha also said "Work out your own salvation with dilligence" and had the grace not to refer to people as sheep.

so if an adherent of either religion is not capable of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture for BOTH religions... to understand what similarities exist,

 >>> Having been a Christian for a goodly part of my adult life including some serious time in and around a Catholic monastic community, with a few years break being a Baha'i', I'm quite familiar with the superficial similarities of the monastic lifestyles of both traditions. Doctrinally, aside from some of the Pure Land sects, which were founded nearly 1000 years after Buddha's death, there isn't a bloody bit of similarity in doctrine between Buddhism and Christianity

then what kind of a student can they actually call themselves?

  >>>> Who the hell are you to pass judgement? You don't have a dog in this fight. You are neither a Christian or a Buddhist. Exactly why am I supposed to care about Christianity? I 'm a Buddhist. Christianity was tested and found wanting. I'm not interested in any putative savior from the post-Abrahamic lot, thank you.

Bob, I find it interesting that Christianity has sought to borrow methods of practice from Buddhism, specifically meditation practices. Most Christians are blissfully unaware that they have their own tradition of meditational prayer available within the monastic tradition of both Catholic and Orthodox. Note that I used the term "prayer". I don't know of any Buddhists who pray during sitting meditation, which is the core of Buddhist practice.

My first experience with Buddhist meditation was many many years ago while taking a retreat based on The Ignatian Exercises, in the style of a Zen sesshin, or concentrated period of meditation and teaching. The Exercises are a tool for spritual self examination developed by Inego Loyola, who was the founder of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) as part of the spiritual formation of their members.  The Jesuit running the retreat had serious experience studying Buddhism and some years as a serious meditator and approached Buddhism with great respect. It was a powerful and profound experience.

      Interestingly enough, I've never seen Buddhists attempt to adopt Christian spiritual techniques.

Apr 22, 2012 -- 2:36PM, mainecaptain wrote:

Christianity is largely a religion that is a conglomeration of many other religions. They are like the borg, they assimilate other religions and then the older religion becomes corrupted in the Christianity, as Christianity changes it and its meanings.

I actually think Christianity does that to eventually purge the original religion, but ends up turning their own beliefs into mish mosh of other peoples beliefs.

Now I am not trying to be insulting to Christians, there are some wonderful people who are Christian, but that is what it does.

And those who deliberately pick on and compare Christianity with other faiths, are IMHO, deliberately trying to make the other faith less special, thus in their way removing is value and influence. I really think that is what they (generic) are attempting to do, Make the other faith (Buddhism in this case), seem less important, less influential. It is a form of stealth proselytising.

I bet they think by comparing and finding similarities,  they can shift people into becoming Christian

excellent point... and makes for ANOTHER similarity!

they both changed as they moved through different cultures and religious groups...

producing different denominations such as Zen, Pure Land, Nichiren, etc as religions such as Shinto are encountered and coexistence begin forming.

but the Mahayana form in particular struck a chord with its promise of salvation to both monastic followers and laity alike.

but its subsequent success owed much to its tolerance and absorption of the older deities of the indigenous Shinto mountain cults. Before Buddhism, Shinto shamanism and mountain worship were the predominant forms of native faith. Japan’s pre-Buddhist beliefs in nature spirits and holy men with magical powers were incorporated into Buddhism during the Nara and Heian periods, resulting in a complex blend of Shinto-Buddhist practice.

dio,

Apr 21, 2012 -- 10:18AM, dio wrote:

how to deal with anger is the issue.

Indeed.  One of my favorite teachers, Thich Nhat Hanh, wrote a book on the matter, the aptly named Anger.  More enjoyable to me personally, however, was his earlier book, The Miracle of Mindfulness, which covers mindfulness, which in turn covers how to deal with anger among other things.  The final chapter, written by James Forrest, recounts a moving story of how Thay ("Teacher," as he is also called) himself has dealt with his own anger through an actual example in his life.

Mindfulness is key.

Apr 21, 2012 -- 10:18AM, dio wrote:

It seems his internal code of conduct stopped the Samurai from killing the murderer, which was thou shall not kill in anger. In the Jewish story, it's the Law too which says thou shall not kill or be angry, but  In both cases the samurai and the Jew it is the Law and code of the Samurai which turns both away from killing.

Where does the Law and the code come from? Sombody else, a prophet or higher authority.

Jewish Law came from their prophets, and the Samurai code from Buddha.

Japanese culture was obviously very influenced by Buddhism.  But though the Buddha's teachings (among other factors) have influenced the development of Bushido (the samurai warrior code), this code preexists Buddhism's arrival to Japan by hundreds of years, and therefore has no foundational basis in Buddhism.

But yes, your story does sound philosophically similar.

Apr 21, 2012 -- 10:18AM, dio wrote:

I'm not sure what Dharma is. Is it like a code to live by?

As I stated in post #53, dharma (or dhamma) is the Buddha's teachings.  I've also heard it referred to as truth, or the Buddha's truth.  It could be seen as a code I suppose, though I would say it is more than simply a code to adhere to.  It is a way of life, a methodology for transforming the mind towards the cessation of dukkha (stress or suffering).  For more, a great place to start is by reading the Dhammapada.  Among the earliest of written accounts attributed to the Buddha, it has been said to summarize the Theravadan Buddhist cannon.