Christian Buddhist Dialogue

[Anonymous No.15119804]

Are there any good books about Christianity and Buddhism? Also feel free to post anything you want to share about these two religions.

[Anonymous No.15120053]

Some of what Jacob Boheme wrote could be compared to Buddhism and Hinduism. Buddhism seems to reject all gods as if they were all what Hindus would call devas. Boheme actually makes the Buddhist point of view to make sense because it explains how reality as is came to be. It's kind of stupid for Buddhist to just feel that they're all the sudden randomly in this part of reality. But I guess that's empiricism for you and certainly it is appealing to certain kinds of Souls. and it certainly recognizes one of the major problems we have suffering / desire.

But for Jacob this desire is actually God's and how he gives birth to himself and how all of reality is born. Though this desire is only the first part of the manifestation of the trinity and being trapped in this desire is suffering to us because we are still in the process of full actualization in the trinity. this process of the Trinity once again expresses why that there are different parts of reality such as hell and heaven and the Earth.

Even though Jacob is often very negative in his language as are many Christian Mystics and other Mystics, he spoke of discursive reality as being completed in the process of the trinity. What is most interesting to compare is that Boheme said before God was Creator and before he manifest himself as Trinity he was a simple peace and calmness. Jacob said that the Trinity is because of a kingdom of joy. In this you can see the distinction that Christians sometimes make between the godhead and the persons of the trinity.

So in Jacob's point of view God is giving birth to himself but a Buddhist might be more prone to Simply desire to not be born. You might say that in some ways they appear to be wanting to seek that simple peace and calmness of the godhead than to rejoice and to enjoy all those created orders of being that Jacob and the Hindu speaks of.

Also the rejection of the Devas only makes sense because they are the Angels who are perfect but humans are in some way Superior because they have the potential to not be stuck in evil or in pleasure. since they are caught in the middle they have a good opportunity for enlightenment. Where I think Buddhism might fall short is that they do not recognize that a human then becoming a deva again can still realize Enlightenment easier due to his past experiences as a human. But I don't know all the different Buddhist schools and all that very well.

In general it's pretty obvious in reading Christians Hindus and Buddhists that they're all talking about a similar experience. Those who don't recognize this I would have to say are trapped in the clothing of their own favoritism of their religion. Even from a rationalist point of view it just makes sense that spiritual experience is a universal that is not limited to one religion.

[Anonymous No.15120113]

I think one of the main barriers between all the religions in general is the fact that most of the religious are quite ignorant of the richness from which all religion Springs from. Mysticism is not and will not be the most popular aspect of religion. Mysticisms very nature would keep enlightening the masses too much if it was both popular and correctly understood and experienced. By this very nature religions would be rendered obsolete.

Mysticism merely gaining popularity might mean some kind of reformation a religion, but that would be because mysticism not understood implies religion. Religion is the objectified form, the truth of mysticism unable to fully be revealed in the world. That's one thing religion is - a medium that preserves mysticism and also lowers itself to try to help humans out in other ways of which they can actually accept and which will be beneficial to them. at the very least humans will be evil and use their religion for evil but their religion will still tend to preserve things leading to Mystical truth.

In a deeper spiritual life, life itself would replace religion. And things like community would also replace religion. One would not merely act out the symbols the religion was set up to repeatedly Express because they would live the reality. What could be left but the people and the divine? So things like going to church and singing hymns would be just cuz you enjoy and you understand something about it strongly, and thankfully some people are already this way.

[Anonymous No.15120337]

now was Christ a Buddha or was Buddha a saint foreshadowing Christ

[Anonymous No.15120368]

Budhism won't save you, only Jesus will.

[Anonymous No.15120400]

>>15120368
you mean the Amida Buddha

[Anonymous No.15120422]

>>15120113
based and mysticpilled

[Anonymous No.15120443]

>>15120337
Both

[Anonymous No.15121049]

>>15120400
No, only Jesus, the Christ.

[Anonymous No.15122187]

>>15120368
No one will save you but yourself. Buddhism teaches you how to save you by yourself. Christianity teaches you how to cuck yourself into misery.

[Anonymous No.15122204]

>>15120368
Shlomo Jesusberg won't save you, only the Maitreya will

[Anonymous No.15122273]

Thomas Merton's life's work was this. He realized pretty early on that Christianity and Buddhism are utterly incompatible, as all religions are with Abrahamism, as following Jesus inevitably means you have to do something that would go against what Buddhism teaches, and vice versa.

You literally cannot have both, because of the Semitic closed-hermeneutics of Christianity and the spiritually totalitarian nature of Christianity (even a single slipup can send you to hell, forever, with no possibility of respite). One simply would never have the time to be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time, or even to engage in the act of taking anything from Buddhism into Christianity, as the former would require not being Christian for some time (which sends you to hell) and the latter would involve at best introducing outside elements to Christianity (a sin, punishable by eternity in hell) and at worst saying that Jesus was wrong about something (also a sin, and also punishable by eternity in hell). This is, of course, taking both teachings at their actual face value and not misunderstanding either ("hurf durf buddhists worship le buddha to go to le buddha heaven durrrrr", "hurf durf the new testament doesn't exist Jesus was literally a yogi ommmmmmm").

At best you can do one of either
>Pure Land Buddhism is ACTUALLY just Christianity, so ditch Pure Land Buddhism and do Christianity :^)
>Christianity is ACTUALLY just Pure Land Buddhism, so ditch Christianity and do Pure Land Buddhism :^)

[Anonymous No.15122561]

>>15119804
Is there a Buddhist Apu out there made with the care of this

[Anonymous No.15122647]

>>15120053
Actually, I don’t know about that. Since I’m the higher theology of Christianity “God” is not really a god in the polytheistic sense, but a universal constant. The alpha and the omega and so one. I’d say the really problem is that Christians personify this absolute which high buhdists reject. I think the problem is a matter of embodyment.

[Anonymous No.15122821]

>>15120053
Bohme is much closer to Hindu teachings than Buddhism

[Anonymous No.15123338]

>>15122821
These are basically the same, no?

[Anonymous No.15123406]

>>15123338
No, it depends on who you ask and what schools of Buddhism you are talking about. It shares the same underlying assumptions of rebirth, samsara, karma etc but the metaphysics can be quite different, although there are some later Buddhist schools that reach similar conclusions to Hindu teachings but most researchers don't believe these later schools to be accurate reflections of what Buddha taught in his life. There is a small minority of scholars who think that Buddhism was initially just a slightly different branch of Hinduism that diverged more from its father over time.

[Anonymous No.15123685]

>>15119804
"A course in miracles" is a great book. It's basically Christianity meets Advaita. Powerful stuff.

[Anonymous No.15123727]

>>15122273
The core aspects of the teachings of both Buddha and Jesus are very related to each other. But when it comes to religion itself is where everything falls apart. Being a Christian means going to the church and beg for salvation, which goes against the Buddhist doctrine. Whereas the Buddhist practice denies the world and salvation, which the Church will frown upon.

[Anonymous No.15124264]

>>15119804
Christianity actually has more similarities with Daoism in that fundamentally neither Christianity nor Daosim answer the unanswerable questions. Christianity is more precise however, since while Daoism simply declares that there is no real answer, Christianity plunges one into choices which it doesn't answer; for example Christianity never speaks of how to mesh charity towards our neighbours with indifference to externals, or how we should feel about our own sins, versus how we should feel about having a loving God. Like with Daoism though Christianity has a way, which is trodden and impossible to tread all at once.

Buddhism though seems to answer these unanswerable questions, by affirming that existence is suffering because it fails to negate itself. This fleeing from the world like its a burning building thing has zero to do with Dao, and zero to do with Christianity. Christ said he came so that we could have life more abundantly (John 10:10), Lao Tzu also takes it for granted that life is simply good; so much so that he takes the qualities of youth and suppleness and bases his whole philosophy on those qualities.

[Anonymous No.15124317]

>>15122561
I only have Buddhist Wojak.

[Anonymous No.15124452]

>>15124264
Christianity points out the paradoxes of power and responsibility, but does not absolve anyone to avoid action. You are responsible, always.