Thursday, February 9, 2012

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Why Buddhism & Christianity Are Incompatible: “Catholicism and Buddhism: Compatible Beliefs?”

Saturday, February 28, 2009 • 1:00 pm


An excellent article from Catholic Culture, from which the below is excerpted:

These apparent similarities led to heightened Catholic interest in Buddhism with the rise of the New Age movement in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Some imagined that Buddhism had many new insights to offer to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular due to their supposed compatibilities.

But Pope John Paul II threw water on that fire in 1994’s Crossing the Threshold of Hope with comments regarding Buddhism that received a good amount of press at the time (and also a lot of debate). In his comments, our late pontiff really didn’t pull any punches, calling Buddhism “in large measure an ‘atheistic’ system’.” He pulled the carpet out from under comparisons to Catholicism by pointing out that the ultimate end of man for Christians is union with God, while for Buddhists it is Nirvana (complete detachment, or a state of nothingness).

Two separate warnings concluded the Pope’s remarks on this subject. The first deals with the notion of extracting certain characteristics of Buddhism and incorporating them into Catholic practice:

For this reason it is not inappropriate to caution those Christians who enthusiastically welcome certain ideas originating in the religious traditions of the Far East—for example, techniques and methods of meditation and ascetical practice. In some quarters these have become fashionable, and are accepted rather uncritically. First one should know one’s own spiritual heritage well and consider whether it is right to set it aside lightly. Here we need to recall, if only in passing, the brief but important document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “on certain aspects of Christian meditation” (10/15/1989). Here we find a clear answer to the question “whether and how [Christian prayer] can be enriched by methods of meditation originating in different religions and cultures”.

Second, relating Buddhism to the New Age movement and its Gnostic aspects, the Pope wrote:

A separate issue is the return of ancient gnostic ideas under the guise of the so-called New Age. We cannot delude ourselves that this will lead toward a renewal of religion. It is only a new way of practicing gnosticism—that attitude of the spirit that, in the name of a profound knowledge of God, results in distorting His Word and replacing it with purely human words. Gnosticism never completely abandoned the realm of Christianity. Instead, it has always existed side by side with Christianity, sometimes taking the shape of a philosophical movement, but more often assuming the characteristics of a religion or para-religion in distinct, if not declared, conflict with all that is essentially Christian.

By means of these and other articulate remarks, the Holy Father clearly drew a sharp line between Buddhism and Christianity, rejecting any notion that the two are of like purpose and insisting that Buddhist principles are to be gravely cautioned against.

Interestingly, some critics of the Pope’s remarks stated with vigor that Buddhism is not “atheistic”. Counter attacks varied. One Buddhist commented in rebuttal that followers of Buddha believe that he was the “teacher of gods and men”, and that some Buddhists believe in multiple deities or spirits that look after the affairs of both men and nature. Others pointed out that certain teachings of Buddha specifically point to an uncreated being without which nothing would be in existence.

Please note that though these arguments object to the Pope’s characterization of Buddhism, they in fact do nothing to bring it closer to Catholicism.


11 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXTGmzFGoT0
Regarding the Zenpiscopal business.  This is fabulous!!!  This guy in the wilderness gets it…and TEC leaders in all their “sophistication”, don’t.  He may not have all details down pat, but come on, he’s a pretty succinct and down to earth guy with common sense.

Kudos to BabyBlue for finding it…

[1] Posted by TXThurifer on 02-28-2009 at 01:13 PM • top

Sarah, with your indulgence, I’ll copy what I posted earlier in another post (with a few corrections), as this location is more appropriate. I hold an MA in Buddhist Studies and returned to the fold after quite a few years of believing (incorrectly) that I was both a Buddhist and a Christian (turns out I was always a Christian, never a Buddhist). I trust that the good Christian scholars at Stand Firm will correct any mis-statements of misunderstandings I have expressed about the Christian side.

Ways that Buddhism is incompatible with Christianity:

1. Buddhism not only doesn’t acknowledge the divinity of Christ, it does not recognize divinity at all as a serious category. “Worldly” gods who are born, live and eventually die (even though their time-frame is measured in eons) are the only kind of gods acknowledged, and they are rightly considered inferior and not of merit. The easiest to find reference source on this is “The Questions of King Milinda.” Therefore there can be no purpose to life or living, there is no teleology of developing the fullness God has planted in us. However, in the Third Turning school, it is said you do have inherently some Buddha-qualities that are god-like which are revealed when your defilements of mind are purged.

2. Ditto for the soul or souls (I won’t go into the Classic soul/spirit continuum questions here) for that teaching I have the same source (Milinda) and many, many others. You are held to be a mere mental continuum that may be split into a variety of incarnations if circumstances are correct for that. In Buddhism, you don’t “reincarnate” exactly (as you don’t have a soul there’s nothing to “re” anything). Your mind-stream finds itself helplessly in another body. The personality in the subsequent body is not you, in fact you are not the same personality from instant to instant. Coherence as a being is what Buddhism says you are empty of.

3. The point of Buddhism is the attainment of enlightenment, an ontological category that is personal, though it can only be achieved through the accomplishment of heroic virtue and one must have the intention to help others. Only a very, very few are qualified to practice Buddhism seriously enough to accomplish this end, even though it is the stated goal of all Buddhists, whether of the Theravadin (Southern) or Northern Mahayana traditions. Many tens of thousands of years (or more) and possibly uncountable lifetimes are required to accomplish this goal. You have to be a hero. In Christianity, all who willingly accept the lordship of Jesus may be saved. Even if you’re not a heroic type.

4. In Buddhism, suffering is meaningless, except insofar as it it exhausts bad karma. The principle aim of Buddhism is to end pointless suffering. Contrast that with the refiner’s fire we willingly submit to. There is meaning in everything that happens not only to us, but to everything in Creation.

5. To properly be a Buddhist (as opposed to someone who pretends to be one), you must have three supreme refuges, forsaking all others: Buddha, Dharma & Sangha. This explicitly excludes Christ. God. The Bible, His Church, etc. Now, there are traditions that are vague on that point, but of late, for instance, Tibetan Buddhist teachers have been very, very clear about this (e.g. Dzongsar Khyentse’s “Who is a Buddhist?”—approx. title).

[2] Posted by ears2hear on 02-28-2009 at 01:26 PM • top

My friend who is a missionary to Cambodia describes a profound depression that is on that Buddhist society, explicitly associated with the above summary “there can be no purpose to life or living.”  People inherently know that they have “sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” but they are told that this is their bad Karma and thus they must accept it as their fate - very depressing. 

So when Christians tell them that Jesus died to save them from that sin, it is tremendously exciting and life-giving for them.

One example of karma-think: if you want to stop people from stealing your rice, you could shoot them, but then you would have bad karma.  However if you place land mines around your rice paddy, and someone steps on one, then _they_ had bad karma.

[3] Posted by Michael D on 02-28-2009 at 01:49 PM • top

The recent elevation of the Zenpiscopal ‘fellow’ in Michigan brings further light upon one of the more serious ways TEC is in the mess it is in - with its ever increasing hemorrhage of its members - by allowing ‘faith-challenged individuals’(heretics) into its leadership.

For those looking for more evidence as to why Buddhism & Christianity are incompatible religions - http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/Buddhism_vs_Christianity.htm

btw: do you know where this fellow went to seminary - and who was his classmate - and now his advocate?

[4] Posted by jefcoparson on 02-28-2009 at 02:02 PM • top

“What Makes You Not a Buddhist” by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche.  I think this is the book referenced above.
Our experience among the Tibetan Buddhists has been the same as described by Michael D.  Once they “get it” that through Christ salvation is available now and union with God, not blending into nothingness, is available now and for eternity they are excited indeed.  We see more and more Buddhist monks coming to Christ and being the best of evangelists.

[5] Posted by Edwin on 02-28-2009 at 04:15 PM • top

I am new to this site. I am also not a member of the Episcopal or Anglican communion. I hope that it is still o.k. to be here. I am however an Orthodox Christian. I don’t understand why a person who seems to (based on some of his writings which I have read here) reject the uniqueness as well as the divinity of Christ and doesn’t accept the doctrine of the atonement is allowed to be a Bishop. If he were a member of my church I would say the same thing.

I also think Christian mysticism is different from other types of mysticism in that my understanding of Christian mysticism is that we do not cease to be individuals and that the goal of Christian mysticism is union with the absolute which is Jesus Christ.

[6] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 02-28-2009 at 05:13 PM • top

Welcome FenelonSpoke!!!  Yes, there are several traditions represented…overwhelmingly Anglican, but with Lutherans, RC, Orthodox, Presbies, Non-Denoms, Baptists…you name it.  SFIF is an interesting site that shows WHY it’s important for all corners of The Body of Christ to be vigilant.  What happened in the Anglican Communion can and does happen in other places.

I have, on occasion, dipped my toes in the “Bosporus”...and I greatly respect Holy Orthodoxy…particularly it’s firmness in preserving unchanging Traditions…and also it’s beautiful Divine Liturgy and powerful respect for the Mysteries of God.

[7] Posted by TXThurifer on 02-28-2009 at 05:23 PM • top

#5, That’s exactly the book I meant. Thank you so much for getting it right. Your testimony and #3’s testimony is thrilling to hear. Thank you.

[8] Posted by ears2hear on 02-28-2009 at 05:28 PM • top

I think if more looked at the contributions of Orthodox mystics, instead of pagan quacks, they would find something richer…something they’ve been looking for.


You said, regarding the Zenpiscopal Bishop:
“I don’t understand why a person who seems to (based on some of his writings which I have read here) reject the uniqueness as well as the divinity of Christ and doesn’t accept the doctrine of the atonement is allowed to be a Bishop.”

I think most of us on this site wonder the same thing…join the club.

[9] Posted by TXThurifer on 02-28-2009 at 05:29 PM • top

There are so many threads on this subject, I’m not sure where to post this!  But here goes, in the FWIW category:
I lived in Asia for almost ten years.  One of the things that attracts most dabblers is the myth that Buddhists are all happy, shiny people quoting proverbs like Kwai Chang Caine and eschewing any self-serving desires.  Well, they do have one thing in common with Caine—their willingness to use physical force.  I was in Seoul when a power struggle broke out among the monks of Korea’s largest temple Chogeysa(or Jogeysa).  The riot police had to be called in!  It was on the news and in the papers so I know there are pictures of it.  Police were hurt trying to restore order (not to mention the wounded among the monks fighting amongst themselves.  Now this is the largest, most prestigious temple in Korea!  So I’m somewhat cynical when I meet Americans who play at being Bhuddist because they read Jonathan Livingston Seagul when they were smoking pot and making free love back in the day…
Another thing that has come up, i.e. whether Buddhists worship anything—I must say it certainly LOOKS like worship.  They bring gifts of food, light incense, bow down and pray to the statues there.
I grant you there are different kinds of Buddhism, but it’s helpful to remember that Buddhism essentially evolved out of Hinduism.  Siddhartha Gautama was a Hindu who sought a better “way” to achieve Nirvana, which is the goal of ridding oneself of bad karma through a succession of incarnations.  So there are forms which believe that he was merely the best practitioner of the way and seek to follow him as a teacher; and forms which believe that he “became” the way and worship him as a god.
Either way, it’s nothing like Jesus, becasue there is noone like Jesus.  I tell people all the time: “Buddha’s not out there looking for you—Jesus IS!”  Relationship is a key way to differentiate the two.  Lots of the talk here has centered around the question of reconciling practices.  I say my goal as a follower of Christ is to more closely resemble Christ and I have to observe Him and commune with Him to do so.  Buddhist meditation does not do that.  Period.  Any Bishop—heck, any Priest or Deacon—who thinks classic Christian practices are inadequate to this task are unqualified to serve as subject matter experts in the Chritian walk, and that’s what they are paid to be.

[10] Posted by Fidela on 02-28-2009 at 06:00 PM • top

Paul Williams, a professor at Bristol University and a practicing Buddhist as well as a well-known scholar on Budddhism wrote a book called “The Unexpected Way” On Converting From Buddhism to Catholicism”.  It is a good source for those who might want to pursue this subject further.

[11] Posted by interested observer on 02-28-2009 at 06:34 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.