Is It Possible To Be A Christian Buddhist?

[Zantet Suken]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed already, but anyway.

Is it possible to be Christain Buddhist and intigrate both belief systems? Both encourage compassion and have figures that have a similar bearing: Buddha and Christ. Matter of fact many describe Christ as a Budda.

[TruthSeeker]

I'm one...

[scameter]

I think it is most definitely possible, especially if one takes both religions theosophically.

[CSwriter1]

At one time Buddhism and Catholism, the only Christianity at the time, were so close, that some feared they would become the same religion.

I believe it is important to understanding Jesus, to have some knowledge of Buddhism.

I regret that the teachings of Christ were tied to Judism and the God of Abraham, as I consider this God and the Hebrew stories that go with him, to be harmful mythology. I also think the demonology of Persia that got mixed into the Judaism that became Christianity, a terrible misfortune.

[TruthSeeker]

Everything happens for a purpose...

[scameter]

If we think it does. And even if it does innately, we cannot know for certain.

[Zantet Suken]

Would there have to be a certain way to think about the theology to make it intergratable?

[Kether]

I cannot understand how it could be possible to be a Christian Buddhist. Yes, Jesus' moral feelings seem to conform to Buddhist ideals, but the actual doctrines of the two faiths seem to be very different. Christianity is a theistic religion, which Buddhism is not; theism contradicts Annica, the doctrine of impermanence. Christianity also contradicts Anatta, the belief in the nonexistence of a permanent soul.

Christianity is far, far more than the teachings of Jesus; for one thing, it centres around the worship and veneration of Jesus, calling him 'Christ' - 'anointed one'. Jesus never taught his followers this: it stems from the later apostolic teachings.
The general spirit of the Christian religion draws more heavily on the example set by the Mystery cults of the Hellenistic and Roman worlds than on the teachings of Christ. Many theologians - including the early doctors of the Church, who effectively created Christianity - were as Platonist and Plotinist as they were followers of Jesus of Nazareth, and Christianity has been lent much of its flavour by such philosophers.

Thus, even if Jesus' teachings resembled Buddhism, Christianity's real backbone is composed of the Old Testament, Hellenistic religions, and neoplatonism, which have little in common with - indeed, contradict - Buddhism.

[scameter]

Would there have to be a certain way to think about the theology to make it intergratable?

Well, I would definitely advise, if one is wishing to be a combination of Buddhism and Christianity, to have a theosophical/philosophical, i.e. open, mind about both subjects and their correlation. To believe in one more than the other would cause a sort of discontent in the two's relationship with one another within you.

Thus, even if Jesus' teachings resembled Buddhism, Christianity's real backbone is composed of the Old Testament, Hellenistic religions, and neoplatonism, which have little in common with - indeed, contradict - Buddhism.

Yes, if one takes everything the church says literally, and what interpretations of the Bible have been proclaimed to say. I would advise looking past all of the cults and influences and churches and such of the Bible's interpretation, and read either the Greek/Aramaic and/or Hebrew versions of the Bible, for a more accurate tale. And, as I said above, I would say to consider Buddhism and Christianity with a theosophical/philosophical mind. I am not saying that such a union is possible, but I think one could definitely believe in both if done so open-mindedly.

[Kether]

Scameter, you need to think this through. Would you really have the mind be so open that it would believe two mutually exclusive things at the same time? After a point, the mind becomes so open that the brain falls out...

[locomotive]

hahahha

[scameter]

I disagree Kether. The mind can be entirely open, and aware of all versions and beliefs and searches for truth, as well as able to keep an impartial perspective, to an extent of course, in this mind frame. Bertrand Russel spoke of this in his book The Problems of Philosophy.

[Kether]

Yes, it can and should do that. But it is impossible for two mutually exclusive things to both be true of the same thing, which is in this case the whole of existence. Both 'there is a God' and 'there is no God' cannot be true of reality; it has to be one or the other. We cannot necessarily know for certain which one is true, but what we can be certain of is that God cannot exist if He/She/It does not exist.
I am passionately in favour of impartiality. I also consider it good to listen to a wide range of views on a subject; however, the listener must be critical, and must decide for themself the truth of an opinion. I consider the best tool for this to be reason.

[scameter]

Yes I see your logic Kether, but that cannot apply to the whole of reality. The statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" can both be true, philosophically, as the Tao is true in that it is everything and nothing, the entirety of opposites in existence, at once without opposition, which is true of reality as well.

I am not so passionate about impartiality my friend. I think that it is fundamental, although not exclusively so, to fields such as math, science and history, but to fields such as philosophy, psychology and especially creative writing impartiality is not always desired, especially not in the majority of position, because impartiality is not life; life isn't impartial. Life is subjective and partial, and to fields that require part of the contributing person to be given, such as creative writing and philosophy, impartiality would deny this contribution.

[scameter]

As a note, I would reccomend you to read the book Living Buddha, Living Christ. It's an excellent book that has much to do with the discussion here. I have only read part of it currently, but hope to get back to it sometime. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

Kether: Thus, even if Jesus' teachings resembled Buddhism, Christianity's real backbone is composed of the Old Testament, Hellenistic religions, and neoplatonism, which have little in common with - indeed, contradict - Buddhism.

D'accord. Yet you mentioned the pivotal fact at the beginnig. There are many resemblances between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Buddha. This becomes even clearer in the early gnostic scriptures. However, the Christian church developed a momentum against gnosticism and in favour of Neoplatonism, which is why the commonalities have become irrecognisable. Thus Christianity and Buddhism are incompatible in their current form. But if you go back to the source and pretend not to be Christian or Buddhist, but simply a student of Buddha or Jesus (as far as that is possible today) then you can learn from both masters and there is only one obvious and major difference: the question of God.

The book that Scameter mentioned "Living Buddha, Living Christ" is from Thich Nhat Hanh (ISBN: 1573225681). I can recommend it. There is a free online library of texts and ebooks dedicated to religion and mythology: www.sacred-texts.com. Under the Christianity category you find the entry Apocrypha which means non-canonised texts. There is a large selection of early Christian texts which did not make it into the bible: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/index.htm

Cheers, Thomas

[TruthSeeker]

D'accord. Yet you mentioned the pivotal fact at the beginnig. There are many resemblances between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Buddha. This becomes even clearer in the early gnostic scriptures. However, the Christian church developed a momentum against gnosticism and in favour of Neoplatonism, which is why the commonalities have become irrecognisable. Thus Christianity and Buddhism are incompatible in their current form. But if you go back to the source and pretend not to be Christian or Buddhist, but simply a student of Buddha or Jesus (as far as that is possible today) then you can learn from both masters and there is only one obvious and major difference: the question of God.
That's exactly what both me and my mother did. :)

Unfortunately, we are the exception of the rule... :reallysad:

[scameter]

And those versions of Christianity and Buddhism Thomas, the direct following of the teachings of Buddha and the teachings of Jesus individually interpreted and experienced, are the ones that I follow and discuss, not the church.

[Kether]

Yet you cite the Bible as containing the true meaning of Jesus' teachings?
...You mentioned the pivotal fact at the beginning. There are many resemblances between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of the Buddha.
Indeed. But I do not consider Jesus a Christian; I consider his teachings to be an independent philosophy. Much of Christianity centres around the elaborate worship of Jesus, yet he never instructed his followers to do this. There are many more differences between Christianity, especially the Christianity that is followed by most Christians, and Jesus' teachings as well.
I am not so passionate about impartiality my friend. I think that it is fundamental, although not exclusively so, to fields such as math, science and history, but to fields such as philosophy, psychology and especially creative writing impartiality is not always desired, especially not in the majority of position, because impartiality is not life; life isn't impartial. Life is subjective and partial, and to fields that require part of the contributing person to be given, such as creative writing and philosophy, impartiality would deny this contribution.
Psychologists do not desire impartiality? Psychology is a science, or claims to be.
Maths, science, history, philosophy and psychology are completely different fields from creative writing. Creative writing is an art form: it plays on the emotions. It is not a field for discovering objective knowledge; it is a field that plays on feeling. Philosophy, on the other hand, means 'love of knowledge', and mathematics, the sciences, and the humanities share this goal.

[TruthSeeker]

Yet you cite the Bible as containing the true meaning of Jesus' teachings?
I don't understand that either... :huh:

[scameter]

I think Kether that what the Bible gives as what Jesus said is capable of delivering truth. But I could be wrong.

[TruthSeeker]

Maybe the words of Jesus, yes, but not the entire Bible! :o

[scameter]

Why not?

[TruthSeeker]

Why yes?

[scameter]

Why not not?

[TruthSeeker]

Why yes yes? :lol:

[scameter]

Not why yes?

[TruthSeeker]

Because not why!(?)

[scameter]

Not why not, why? :P

[TruthSeeker]

Because yes!!!! Why not!?!?!? :blink: :wacko: :silly:

[scameter]

:D

[TruthSeeker]

This discussion say a lot about the original question, doesn't it? :lol:

[scameter]

:lol: Actually, from a certain point of view.... :lol: