04-26-2012, 07:18 PM
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: Buddhism and Ayurveda are complimentary teaching.
Ayurveda comes from Hinduism, not Buddhism.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: sometimes there is an overlap between Buddhism and Hinduism.Roughly speaking, VERY roughly speaking, but helpful to Westerners:
Hinduism is to Buddhism as Judaism is to Christianity. One relies on and is predicated on rules/history of the other, fulfills the prophecies of the other.
Hindus believe in the concept of "avatars" and Buddhists have pretty much jettisoned that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar
Buddha was initially seen as an Avatar of Vishnu (Jesus too, BTW) and many Hindus still believe this. The concept of the Trinity first came from Hinduism, and Vishnu (the Preserver) is the Second Person of their Trinity, as Jesus is in Christianity. Krishna was the last avatar of Vishnu, and many have noted the similar of his name to "Christ"... some people think its all the same story, especially due to the Trinity connection.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: Early Buddhism seems to be what you are discussing?
This is roughly what Theravada is. I would compare it (very roughly, again, no analogy is perfect!) to Catholicism. Lots of ritualistic stuff developed here. Mahayana would be Protestantism, the reform. Zen would be Charismatic or Pentecostal, major style difference.
Someone upthread said Tibetan was fundamentalist, and theologically, you might be right... Tibetans "act out" more... that is, make pilgrimages and try to fulfill the Eightfold Path. Also (as I said above) much more categorical about the concept of "no self"--this is possibly because Tibet was isolated longer than other Buddhist areas like China, Laos, Thailand, Burma and Japan. Also, extended persecution tends to make people "double down"--as you all know. (Oddly, communist persecution of Tibetan Buddhists, made them theologically much stronger.)
Like I said, rough analogies, but kind of helpful in explaining differences.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: Buddhism seeks to alleviate suffering, correct? All humans suffer.
Buddhism seeks to end samsara, which is the only way to achieve Nirvana.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: Buddhism's teaching in The Four Noble Truths is pointing to alleviating "suffering" through enlightenment.
But one person can not (usually) achieve this in one lifetime, which is why we've all had many.
Leading us to this conversation we are having this second.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: You have to wipe your mind clean of any Judeo Christian teaching to grasp Buddhist conceptsOh, how well I know!
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: It requires a completely different worldview to accept.Yes, I would certainly agree.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: Or if a person has abandoned belief in God entirely Buddhism offers an alternative for life without God.
It's highest idolatry for sinful man to think we can bring real peace apart from the Prince of Peace.
Siddhartha was a prince too... in fact, he was also the product of a virgin birth. He was also called "Prince of Peace" in his homeland, and all waaay before Jesus was born.
Just sayin.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: Let's say I decided to follow these teachings and still trust in Christ alone for my salvation. It's impossible, because ultimately I'd be trusting in my overcoming negative actions for assurance that I'm progressing. You can't syncretize Buddhism and Christianity, in Buddhism there's no need for Jesus' substitutionary work on the cross.
People like you are who convinced me I should leave the church, so I did. Is that what you intended?
Forcing people to choose might not be a good thing.
Buddhism doesn't force you to choose, by contrast.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: You would have to drain it all of all biblical meaning and come up with a new reason for why he died and arose from the dead.
The word is Bodhisattva. This is what Jesus was.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: I'd have to throw out the bible as God's Word and even my need for a Savior.
No, you don't HAVE to throw out anything that helps you, rather than harms you. That is the Buddhist way, and what several others have said in this thread.
Do what works. Do what you need to do. The trouble is, in the West, Christianity has instructed people not to trust themselves and their instincts and to think of themselves as irreparably tainted.
Dumping the whole "original sin" idea has been very difficult for me. The Vatican implants chips in your head, I think its in the holy water or something.
I worried that I would have to leave behind St Francis and Mary, to be Buddhist. I was assured that if they give me strength and example, I can keep them. In fact, it would be pretty spiritually-negative to get rid of such shining examples of people who sought to live outside their "selves" and live for the enlightenment of others.
They looked at "the big picture"!
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: Jesus claimed "I Am the Way, the TRUTH and the life." He either is or isn't, He's not an add-on to other philosophies and no philosophy can add to His work.
Since Buddhism came first, I think we know who added what to whom, but never mind.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: The bible explains the cause of suffering and the One who conquered the cause of it.
What is the cause of suffering? Where is the Bible verse that explains it rationally? Even Soren Kierkegaard admitted this was debatable when he wrote a whole book on it.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: It would be self delusion for me to try and syncretize Buddhist pragmatism and still worship Christ. Holding up my morality to God will damn me and prove I knew His standard all along but since He requires perfection I'd rather count Christ as my righteousness and grounds for reconciliation. Any good I do even as a Christian isn't where I find peace. As much as I've suffered at least I know the reason and the Hope beyond it. Also, to know the suffering I've caused has also been forgiven is incredibly comforting. I think God's love is evidenced by His warnings about sin's punishment. I don't want to do away with that warning, it shows He loves us enough to warn us.
Warn us we will burn? How is this love? I really cannot reconcile these two dogmas... eternal fire and love. They do not go together.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: In me there is no "good" true self only a sinner who needs redemption.
I found this a very self-destructive and self-hating theology, which is why it so often leads to hating The Other who is outside of it. i.e. If you have to toe the line, by God, then they should too, and you resent the unGodly types partying late into the night, and seek to Make. Them. Pay.
At least, that is how it sounds.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: I think you picked up on my contrasts between Buddhism and Christianity and it blurred the lines of what Deepak taught. It was my poor analysis that caused the confusion.
Chopra is Hindu and trained under Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. His views of Buddha are that he was an avatar of Vishnu, as explained above. This can sound "Buddhist" to people who aren't aware of the differences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: The Bible teaches about Hell, Deepak does not and did not in the videos.
Too horrifying, anti-human and disgusting, so good for him!
No more hell-talk.
Hell is an invention to make children sit still in class.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: He does not talk about being good as a means of achieving a good afterlife. His way and Buddhism's way of overcoming death is to view it as natural. The Bible explains it is unnatural.
Hm.
As Groucho Marx famously asked, "who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: Deepak doesn't contrast good and evil. Good is only a relative thing but what are you supposed to contrast suffering with exactly?
Pleasure.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: To alleviate suffering(bad) through enlightenment is becoming the true self which is inherently good, they think.
Again, that is a Hindu view. I don't believe there is an over-riding "self"--although I do have memories and a brain, which force me into the consciousness of "narrative"... and that is what we have. Narrative.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: I just pointed out that good must be ascertained somehow and it's ironic that we all have the same understanding of what it means.
No, since you think GOOD is something to do simply to avoid hell... and that hell is something a loving Father would allow his beloved children to experience. Thing is, I can't fathom such a "father"--no earthly fathers I know would subject their children to such a thing. But "Father in heaven" is supposedly better than earthly fathers?
Sounds worse to me. Further: Makes no logical sense.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: Jesus summed it up two ways. Love God and love your neighbor as yourself but he was distilling the Moral Law. Buddhism's teaching in The Four Noble Truths is pointing to alleviating "suffering" through enlightenment.
See above post for delineation of Theravada and Mahayana views on this.
Lutherans and Baptists also disagree.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: They don't use the word sin nor do they have it as a concept.
HA! I wish!
The word is kilesa, "defilements"--serves the same purpose: things to avoid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleshas_(Buddhism)
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: He describes life as "eternity" into which death is a part of it. To over come the fear of death is simple just realize that "life as an eternal flow that is neither loss nor gain only transformation." So that's reincarnation.
I agree, but there are many disciplines to learn to overcome fear of death and to learn "how to die", which is what the Bardo Thodol (Tibetan Book of the Dead) is.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: I guess if you've eliminated God's judgement, sin and your culpability these concepts will work for you.
Deepak equates us to God in the sense that when we experience true "love" as in doing things for unselfish reasons there we have experienced God or the essence of this "idea" of God that we have. He's drawing from the Four Immeasurables in this sense. He doesn't view God as a being, the totality of the universe and our interconnectedness is as close as Buddhism gets to that concept.
In Hinduism this is known as "The Godhead"--and I think he does a rather clumsy job of communicating this.
I once heard a Catholic priest in an AA talk do it better than him, even.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: Since Buddhism has at least two different schools
Four, and twenty major sects. Countless smaller ones, as in Christianity.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: All schools of buddhist thought do not have "gods" mentioned though some do and indeed they are not necessary and some would say are counter productive to consider.
Hello? Where did you get this stuff? I think before you start talking about Buddhist history, you need to read a few books about it. Just straight history, not theology or philosophy.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: They don't ascribe creation or judgment capabilities to these gods. Where gods are mentioned they are not ascribed a place higher than humans. Deepak doesn't go into any discussions of this except redefining God as love, not a divine being. They don't need nor desire a cosmology or beginning of humanity or a personal Creator for their philosophy to work.
As I said, Deepak is Hindu, not Buddhist.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: I don't want to misrepresent Deepak, he may blend some things but Buddhism does allow for that since much Eastern thought does have overlap, especially when dealing with holistic medicine. But he does teach Buddhism
Please read what I said above... you simply have this wrong. Chopra is a new-age guru-popularizer and not the Dalai Lama, which is who you should read if you want the straight dope, as they say.
Its like depending primarily on Joel Osteen for all of your Christian theology: leaves a lot out and emphasizes things that other Christians would not necessarily emphasize at all.
(04-25-2012, 04:32 AM)beensetfree Wrote: Now I have to go study more but that's fine since my Father in Law likes to talk about this with me quite spiritedly so maybe there's a reason for me to understand further.
You know the John Lennon song, "Imagine"? I'm one of those people who doesn't like to imagine the world he posits because I'd have to give up Jesus. Same for Buddhism.
John was married to a Buddhist, of course, so yes, he did get many ideas from her.
It was a Christian who shot John Lennon though. You forgot that part. He said it was God's will, so I guess he agreed with you.
Off the record, on the QT and very hush-hush
