Epos Nix on 10/4/2010 at 22:02
(
http://www.heartlandsangha.org/parallel-sayings.html) Here's a link to some quotes by both Jesus and Buddha. You'll notice they are very similar. Philosophically speaking, Jesus and Buddha would have gotten along like brothers.
On the topic of deity worship, I have my own interpretations of Jesus' words that do not seem to jive with the common understanding. Essentially, Jesus made mention that the lord God lives in his kingdom Heaven. He then mentions that the kingdom of Heaven is within us. To me, this is directly compatible with Buddha's teaching that Buddha-mind exists within each of us but enlightenment must be attained before it can be discovered. What I see here is the same train of thought spelled out among two different cultures.
Anyway, I'm not here to preach. I'm sorry if I come across that way. But considering Buddhism is a quest for Truth, you'd be wise not to dismiss Christ's words too quickly. Many prominent Buddhists will tell you the same.
Namdrol on 10/4/2010 at 23:30
Buddhist influence on the gospels is commonly acknowledged amongst biblical scholars as being quite a strong possibility precisely because of the striking similarities.
But the two belief systems, despite having similarities at a very basic "how to live your life and be nice to people" level, are opposed in their very fundamental ideas.
What is a Christian?
I think at its most basic, removing doctrinal/sectarian differences it can be said to be someone who believes that salvation is only to be found through Jesus Christ the Son of God
What is a Buddhist?
This is harder to define but it is possibly best expressed in a belief in the 4 seals (not the 4 noble truths)(them fucking Indians loved their numbered lists, you want to see some of the classifications of phenomena)
Which are -
All compounded things are impermanent.
All emotions are pain. (this is the one that causes most squeals of outrage)
All things have no inherent existence.
Nirvana is beyond concepts.
(Read (
http://www.khyentsefoundation.org/pdf/WMYNAB-shambhala.pdf) this pdf for a brilliant exposition on these and buy the book of which this is the first chapter if it tickles you.)
Buddhists do not believe in - (And Christians do)
The fall from grace of humanity
Original sin
The need for a personal saviour and the return of said saviour at some future point
Life after death
God
The end of the world and the ascension to heaven
As to why I have problems with people lumping them together, it's to do with the fact that there is a doctrinal point within Buddhism that says anything, absolutely anything, that can be proved to be wrong in the Buddhas teachings can and should be removed. So at heart it is a religion* of science and the scientific method and has nothing to do with faith.
Whereas Christianity disempowers people, tells them that they have to believe because I say so and wallows in this faith like a pig in shit
*When I asked the question of Lama Yeshe and he gave that answer, most of the other people around the dinner table got very upset and started arguing vehemently that Buddhism was a religion, so he said ok, if you want it to be a religion and if it's possible to have a religion without a god then yes, it is a religion.
Muzman on 10/4/2010 at 23:56
Yeah, while the kernel is very different, plenty of Buddhist practice is quite recognisably religious (and of course there's a broad spectrum of that).
What struck me most when I first learned it was the way Chistianity borrowed great gobs of Aristotle as well (not that I can recall the details any more)
Quote Posted by Queue
P.S. I think I may be a Buddhist. The irony is that my wife is (honestly) planning what she's calling a
Viking Funeral... Whatever the fuck it is, there'll be booze, a large pyre, and flaming arrows, all culminating in some convoluted drinking game. I swear, the Christians just don't know how to die with any sort of class.
Doesn't that mean you get put to sea in burning longboat?
Epos Nix on 11/4/2010 at 00:08
Namdrol, is it possible that Jesus was trying to teach the Jews of the time some Buddhist principles and they got it utterly wrong, mixing Judaism with Buddhist philosophy? After all, Jesus commented on the fact that Peter was a dumb shit more than once...
Namdrol on 11/4/2010 at 00:27
Quite possible and a nice idea! :D
Reading the history of Church teachings and the way they developed is fascinating stuff (well, if you like that sort of thing) and the fact that the first ecumenical council was held for tax reasons has always made me laugh. Constantine had declared that Christian churches were tax free and then came the thorny issue of which churches deserved this tax free status and which didn't.
Illuminatus on 11/4/2010 at 01:04
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
Pre-conversion the military was made up of conscripts and volunteers from a wide variety of pagan belief systems, once non-Christian religions became unacceptable it became impossible to maintain a large enough military to effectively defend and govern the Empire at it's peak.
Which brings me to: The Byzantine empire was also half the size of the Roman Empire, and mostly around the Mediterranean, making re-deployment of a smaller military more effective as a tool of defense and governance. And Theodosius I's anti-pagan decrees were probably major contributors to the split between the Western and Eastern Empires, and ultimate collapse of the West. And the destruction of a huge chunk of Alexandria.
Without also getting into a full-fledged debate over the fall of the Roman Empire (oh boy), I can tell you that the whole “Pagan vs. Christian” theory has been largely discredited in favour of more concrete demographic and economic arguments. Your point about “unacceptable non-Christian soldiers” is illogical, since the late Roman military actually associated itself with more pagan mercenaries than ever (the army’s “Germanization’ is actually one of the most widely agreed-upon causes of decline). The reality is that the (Christian) Western Empire fell due to deeply rooted infrastructural and existential problems, while the (Christian) Eastern Empire managed to survive and flourish as Europe’s leading power. There was much more going on here than the state religion.
scumble on 11/4/2010 at 07:16
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
The problem is that it is difficult to prove the counterfactual, so we don't know what great advances could have occurred if not for the dominance of the church, but given the orthodoxy of belief and the political machinations within the church during that time, which caused a suppression of "heresy," - and especially in light of the rate of advance within society as the influence of the church has waned - it is fair to say that any of these advances and cultural high points were very much "in spite of" the church.
So you're essentially calling it a
post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I do think the monastic tradition has some value in having an effect on agricultural practice and providing welfare for the poor. Apparently the dissolution of the monasteries in England wiped out a source of support for local communities and deprived their tenants of their means of subsistence, and the replacement poor laws were far less satisfactory. It is difficult to say what might have happened if Henry VIII had left them alone, rather than simply plunder them to raise money for foreign wars.
History does seem to be full of this sort of thing, and it appears quite common for people to assert that something is caused by something else without any supporting evidence. Still doesn't make counterfactuals any easier to prove.
scumble on 11/4/2010 at 07:27
Quote Posted by Muzman
Yeah, while the kernel is very different, plenty of Buddhist practice is quite recognisably religious (and of course there's a broad spectrum of that).
I think religion only requires the belief that some bundle of habits will lead to salvation. Some strains of Buddhism have more of this than others. Zen would probably be my favourite because it has the lightest formal structure of any of them. It's pretty much just meditation with nothing you could call theology.
I suppose Islam is one of the most ritual-heavy religions, and the catholic strain of christianity has more than most other strains - that is, after all, while Luther and others wanted to break away for more simplicity.
Saying that, christianity is weighed down by far more theology than it should be - if you took the teachings of Jesus at face value you'd have a much more ascetic and contemplative religion. Perhaps one of the reasons a theological religion is successful is that it comes with all the "thinking" apparently pre-delivered, and hence over the years it's all gone a bit wonky as "leaders" in the church have pushed their own agendas at the expense of less contemplative members who believe anything that comes out of a preacher's mouth.
Nicker on 11/4/2010 at 09:09
Quote Posted by scumble
I do think the monastic tradition has some value in having an effect on agricultural practice and providing welfare for the poor. Apparently the dissolution of the monasteries in England wiped out a source of support for local communities and deprived their tenants of their means of subsistence, and the replacement poor laws were far less satisfactory.
Was that cohesion a result of the monastic tradition or would the presence of a warlord, a small town, an industry do just as well?
The basic unit of human society is the village (the troupe). People can self-organise quite effectively at the village and parish level. That is, they do not need an external authority to impose order. We prefer order and naturally collaborate to achieve it.
The ideology of the local administrative class, from village chief and above, is an arbitrary factor. It colours the societal rules but it is not the source of our adaptive genius for cooperation.
I am sorry to have been especially insufferable lately but [rant] this is why I get so steamed when people claim that their pet deity / religion is the source of
human decency and preserver of moral and social order! NO! It is not. It's coming along for the free ride and selling tickets to the horses. [/rant]
Thank you all for your patience.
