May buddhist read holy texts of other religions?

[BrianG]

Can buddhist read The Bible or Qur'an, etc? Is it bad karma?

If you have taken the Bodhisattva vows, it's a breakage of the 29th branch vow, to spend excessive time studying non-Buddhist scriptures. That doesn't mean they can't be studied, but if you spend more time studying the Bible, than sutras, without a very good reason, that's a problem.

[muni]

No, you shouldn’t read these, they will burn your nose!!!
It all depend on own mind and own mind only how scriptures are perceived. I guess, if one realized the meaning of the Buddha, there will be no scripture leading astray and all religious methods will be seen clearly whether pointing to nature as it is or not.
When we know how to practice, we also will see clear in these.

I just think, while we can learn from each other and while we do not need to avoid words of other religions, we should try to understand our nature beyond scriptures by our own received methods in order to understand ALL.

I assume the reason being the better we can understand where people of different religions are coming from, the more skillfully we can communicate and help free everyone from suffering

Wonderful.

[Simon E.]

Can buddhist read The Bible or Qur'an, etc? Is it bad karma?

Yes,and as long as the content being read and assimilated is consistent with Buddhist tenets.Religions other than Buddhism,Hinduism and Jainism for instance not only condone but encourage meat eating,on the pretext that " God " created animals for Human consumption.

Buddhism is far more mature and superior,recognizing the equality of all "sentient beings".

All of my Buddhist teachers are/were mature ( I think by definition they would not think of themselves as 'superior' ) and all eat/ate meat BECAUSE they recognise the equality of all sentient beings.

[Simon E.]

It's not bad karma, that's kind of silly. You can read whatever you want, but if you start mixing and matching idea's from different religions you're going to end up with a pretty incoherent view of things.

It's always good to understand other religions, though. If you can find similarities throughout the different religions it helps find common ground.

This.

We can learn about all religions. It may be a good idea to do so.
But we can only practise one.

Attempts to practise more than one, or kid ourselves that we have transcended the outer forms, always always lead to a strange dogmatic confusion which is intolerant of traditions.

[pael]

My original intention for starting read Bible was to destroy my subconcious belief/fear of omnipotent God.

[muni]

My original intention for starting read Bible was to destroy my subconcious belief/fear of omnipotent God.

I heard a man Thomas Keating, an old Christian monk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Keating
He said heaven is not a holy place somewhere, it is a higher state of consciousness. And by the connection with God, we are lead to the same higher consciousness. This is when you are becoming like the High Other (God) and then the realization there is no other is completed, he said. He also said that the Holy Spirit to realize this is in all beings available.
So not an omnipotent God here, but a man obviously speaking from his experience.

[Losal Samten]

I think that's a good motivation for reading the Bible pael, but as shown by muni's post above, it will be best to stick with Buddhist refutations of such a God etc rather than decide on your own.


Sakya Pandita (translated by Malcolm):

• In brief, since that which has been spoken by the Buddha, gathered by the compilers, meditated by siddhas, explained by paṇḍitas, translated by the translators and known to scholars to be taught by the Buddha, it is necessary to hear, explain, meditate and practice that.
  
  If a teaching which is the opposite of those should arise, since it was not a doctrine of the Buddha, one should not listen to it, explain it, meditate on it nor practice it even if it seems very profound. Although there are other non-buddhist and false teachings that seem to be very good, leave them aside because they are not the doctrine of the Buddha.

For muni, Trungpa on rudrahood:

• Then the monkey discovers that he can go beyond the sensual pleasures and beauties of the god realm and enter into the dhyana or concentration states of the realm of the formless gods, which is the ultimate refinement of the six realms. He realizes that he can achieve purely mental pleasure, the most subtle and durable of all, that he is able to maintain his sense of a solid self continuously by expanding the walls of his prison to seemingly include the whole cosmos, thereby conquering change and death. First he dwells upon the idea of limitless space. He watches limitless space; he is here and limitless space is there and he watches it. He imposes his preconception on the world, creates limitless space, and feeds himself with this experience. Then the next stage is concentration upon the idea of limitless consciousness. Here one does not dwell on limitless space alone, but one also dwells upon the intelligence which perceives that limitless space as well. So ego watches limitless space and consciousness from its central headquarters. The empire of ego is completely extended, even the central authority cannot imagine how far its territory extends. Ego becomes a huge, gigantic beast.
  
  Ego has extended itself so far that it begins to lose track of the boundary of its territory. Wherever it tries to define its boundary, it seems to exclude part of its territory. Finally, it concludes that there is no way of defining its boundaries. The size of its empire cannot be conceived or imagined. Since it includes everything, it cannot be defined as this or that. So the ego dwells on the idea of not this and not that, the idea that it cannot conceive or imagine itself. But finally even this state of mind is surpassed when the ego realizes that the idea that it is inconceivable and unimaginable is in itself a conception. So the ego dwells on the idea of not not this, and not not that. This idea of the impossibility of asserting anything is something which ego feeds on, takes pride in, identifies with, and therefore uses to maintain its continuity. This is the highest level of concentration and achievement that confused, samsaric mind can attain.

[muni]

Then the monkey discovers that he can go beyond the sensual pleasures and beauties of the god realm and enter into the dhyana or concentration states of the realm of the formless gods, which is the ultimate refinement of the six realms. He realizes that he can achieve purely mental pleasure, the most subtle and durable of all, that he is able to maintain his sense of a solid self continuously by expanding the walls of his prison to seemingly include the whole cosmos, thereby conquering change and death. First he dwells upon the idea of limitless space. He watches limitless space; he is here and limitless space is there and he watches it. He imposes his preconception on the world, creates limitless space, and feeds himself with this experience. Then the next stage is concentration upon the idea of limitless consciousness. Here one does not dwell on limitless space alone, but one also dwells upon the intelligence which perceives that limitless space as well. So ego watches limitless space and consciousness from its central headquarters. The empire of ego is completely extended, even the central authority cannot imagine how far its territory extends. Ego becomes a huge, gigantic beast.

Ego has extended itself so far that it begins to lose track of the boundary of its territory. Wherever it tries to define its boundary, it seems to exclude part of its territory. Finally, it concludes that there is no way of defining its boundaries. The size of its empire cannot be conceived or imagined. Since it includes everything, it cannot be defined as this or that. So the ego dwells on the idea of not this and not that, the idea that it cannot conceive or imagine itself. But finally even this state of mind is surpassed when the ego realizes that the idea that it is inconceivable and unimaginable is in itself a conception. So the ego dwells on the idea of not not this, and not not that. This idea of the impossibility of asserting anything is something which ego feeds on, takes pride in, identifies with, and therefore uses to maintain its continuity. This is the highest level of concentration and achievement that confused, samsaric mind can attain.

This makes me coming back to Thomas keating as he spoke: Freeing us from ourselves is freeing us from all what is false. Only then we can realize peace.

He also said that some Buddhist see God as a personality, or a form, but he said this is not so. And he is not 'treaten' us as persons neither.

[muni]

I heard as well he said "we are not dying, since only the false self dies". And by this, the falsehoods' mental images.

Here a talk by Thomas Keating.

phpBB [video]

[muni]

When we percieve other religions, we shouldn't mingle them but trust our guidance.

[Simon E.]

When we percieve "other religions", we shouldn't mingle them.

Your implied superiority is duly noted...

[muni]

When we percieve "other religions", we shouldn't mingle them.

Your implied superiority is duly noted...

Superiority is delusion itself, is suffering. I hadn't finished my sentence, peep above, Simon. Since trust-faith is crucial.

[Simon E.]

That is your cue to tell me that there is no superiority or inferiority, there is only mind...

Still of course without a definition of mind.

it isn't going to happen is it ?

You are not going to define what you mean by mind.

Either because you cannot, you are simply throwing out a term willy-nilly, or because it will become clear that what you are talking about is Advaita , not Buddhism. ( your cue to tell me that there is no advaita or buddhism... only mind )

[muni]

Simon wrote: ..to tell me that there is no advaita or buddhism... only mind

We must respect our given medicine and put it into practice.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

My original intention for starting read Bible was to destroy my subconcious belief/fear of omnipotent God.

Good luck with that.

... heaven is not a holy place somewhere, it is a higher state of consciousness ...

Keating's great. In the body of the church that view is like a microbe. Call me when it becomes Catholic doctrine.

[Karma Dorje]

We can learn about all religions. It may be a good idea to do so.
But we can only practise one.

Attempts to practise more than one, or kid ourselves that we have transcended the outer forms, always always lead to a strange dogmatic confusion which is intolerant of traditions.

That's a strangely intolerant dogmatic statement. It may be true of some cases, but I personally am neither dogmatically confused nor intolerant of anything (aside from "reality" TV).

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

I don't think that was Simon's intent ... I think it's legitimate to say that throwing all traditions into one big soup of ecumenism makes a bad taste. Each tradition has its own dignity. It's ok to say that trying to include everything doesn't work and that you have to pick one and stick with it.

[Simon E.]

I don't think that was Simon's intent ... I think it's legitimate to say that throwing all traditions into one big soup of ecumenism makes a bad taste. Each tradition has its own dignity. It's ok to say that trying to include everything doesn't work and that you have to pick one and stick with it.

This. We can be as ecumenical as all getout, But we can only practise one path under instruction from a master of that path...and that will take everything we have.

[Dan74]

It is sometime the case that people who espouse the "it's all one" ecumenism, don't really know or understand any traditions.

But there are also some who have studied more than one tradition in depth and they might have some credibility.

Returning to the OP, I would guess that going into other unfamiliar religions would probably confuse one and weaken resolve, unless one's Buddhist practice is already very strong and mature. But as others have mentioned, solid Dharma practice can actually help you appreciate the religion of your birth better.

Here are a couple of reasonable statements on the topic:

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... gions.html

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/277.htm

http://www.zenforuminternational.org/vi ... =17&t=7398

_/|\_

[Simon E.]

That link has got me wondering...where is Ven. Huifeng ?