ChNN on Jesus?

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
joy&peace
Posts: 1115
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:53 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by joy&peace »

Anyway,

On topic. . .

People mentioned Thay -- he wrote about this. . .
We don't want to say that Buddhism is a kind of Christianity and Christianity is a kind of Buddhism. A mango can not be an orange. I cannot accept the fact that a mango is an orange. They are two different things. Vive la difference. But when you look deeply into the mango and into the orange, you see that although they are different they are both fruits. If you analyze the mango and the orange deeply enough, you will see small elements are in both, like the sunshine, the clouds, the sugar, and the acid.
So -- to me this comes down to, both have Buddha nature, etc..

But as he says -- I cannot accept the fact that a mango is an orange.

So its an important thing.

Quote is from -

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/buddhis ... thers.aspx
Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate bodhi svaha
User avatar
climb-up
Posts: 1187
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:32 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by climb-up »

Malcolm wrote: Not very passive:
And in my own, incredibly witty and hilarious way, I am pointing out some issues I have with some of what he says.
Malcolm has, as always, made many wonderful points and clarifications. He has also been rude, dismissive and (in my humble opinion) very rigid and dogmatic.
I have no problem with his point of view, I have some issues with his style.
I assume it is being presented in good faith. I also assume that (most) fundamentalists deliver their hellfire rhetoric in good faith.
I've bowed out of the conversation because, as I said in a previous post, I don't think it's going anywhere.
That being said:
Did you find that quote to be aggressive?

I felt like it was saying what had already been said, although re-reading it I see the it could be taken as more aggressive than it was meant.
I suspect that you are not particularly upset, but I do apologize.
"Death's second name is 'omnipresent.' On the relative truth it seems we become separate. But on the absolute there is no separation." Lama Dawa
joy&peace
Posts: 1115
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:53 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by joy&peace »

Yes.
Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate bodhi svaha
joy&peace
Posts: 1115
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:53 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by joy&peace »

It's ok -- grudges are not held.

Discuss in good faith and with metta, and you will be understood. And you will be doing good, and helping DW always be a place like this.

Namaste, peace and love.
Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate bodhi svaha
User avatar
climb-up
Posts: 1187
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:32 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by climb-up »

dzogchungpa wrote: I'm catching some hints of salt which, however, is quite good on popcorn.

:popcorn:
686ap.jpg
686ap.jpg (55.6 KiB) Viewed 2924 times
more-salt-please.jpg
more-salt-please.jpg (110.41 KiB) Viewed 2924 times
"Death's second name is 'omnipresent.' On the relative truth it seems we become separate. But on the absolute there is no separation." Lama Dawa
User avatar
climb-up
Posts: 1187
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:32 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by climb-up »

joy&peace wrote:It's ok -- grudges are not held.

Discuss in good faith and with metta, and you will be understood. And you will be doing good, and helping DW always be a place like this.

Namaste, peace and love.
Not sure that I'm doing any good, but I appreciate you!
:namaste:
(the above is salt-free)
"Death's second name is 'omnipresent.' On the relative truth it seems we become separate. But on the absolute there is no separation." Lama Dawa
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21906
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by Grigoris »

Malcolm wrote:
Grigoris wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Axiomatically, Christians, etc., have wrong view, thus wrong realization, etc.
Would it surprise you to know that Christians et al say the exact same thing about all other competing religions?
Indeed, therefore, pick your view — and thus your realization and liberation— carefully. If you are interested in liberation in this lifetime, you would not want to make an error in your choice.

If you are an all-oner, you are lost before you have even begun on a path.
I am going to ignore your red herrings and draw attention to the fact that you seem to be avoiding answering to my point: That the arguments you make for, and the "logic" you use to support, the validity of your position are no different to the arguments made by fundamentalists of any religion. As such they are not all that convincing and hardly befitting a person with your level of (Buddhist) education.

"We are right because we say we are right..." just doesn't cut it.
Last edited by Grigoris on Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by dzogchungpa »

joy&peace wrote:Anyway,

On topic. . .

People mentioned Thay -- he wrote about this. . .
We don't want to say that Buddhism is a kind of Christianity and Christianity is a kind of Buddhism. A mango can not be an orange. I cannot accept the fact that a mango is an orange. They are two different things. Vive la difference. But when you look deeply into the mango and into the orange, you see that although they are different they are both fruits. If you analyze the mango and the orange deeply enough, you will see small elements are in both, like the sunshine, the clouds, the sugar, and the acid.
So -- to me this comes down to, both have Buddha nature, etc..

But as he says -- I cannot accept the fact that a mango is an orange.

So its an important thing.

Quote is from -

http://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/buddhis ... thers.aspx

You and Thay might find this of interest.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by Malcolm »

Grigoris wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Grigoris wrote:Would it surprise you to know that Christians et al say the exact same thing about all other competing religions?
Indeed, therefore, pick your view — and thus your realization and liberation— carefully. If you are interested in liberation in this lifetime, you would not want to make an error in your choice.

If you are an all-oner, you are lost before you have even begun on a path.
I am going to ignore your red herrings and draw attention tot he fact that you seem to be avoiding answering to my point that the arguments you make for, and the "logic" you use to support, the validity of your position are no different to the arguments made by fundamentalists of any religion. As such they are not all that convincing and hardly befitting a person with your level of (Buddhist) education.
Would you like me to be less "fundamentalist?"

I have said for many, many, many, years, over and over again that there is no liberation outside the Dharma of the Buddha. Not sure why this surprises you.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by Malcolm »

climb-up wrote: I suspect that you are not particularly upset, but I do apologize.
No apology necessary. And no, the ramblings of people in the internet don't upset me.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21906
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by Grigoris »

Malcolm wrote:Would you like me to be less "fundamentalist?"

I have said for many, many, many, years, over and over again that there is no liberation outside the Dharma of the Buddha. Not sure why this surprises you.
Well, for starters you went through an anti-Buddhist phase for quite a while, but we'll leave that aside for now... :tongue:

...and, no, I don't want you to be less "fundamentalist" but to argue your "fundamentalism" more intelligently.

I think that after all these years you know very well my position regarding Buddhism and all things Buddhist, so it's not that you have to convince me of anything, I am just playing Devil's advocate here and pointing up some serious flaws in your "logic", it would benefit you to deal with these flaws. It doesn't really make any difference to what I believe.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
joy&peace
Posts: 1115
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:53 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by joy&peace »

But what is the flaw in the logic?

Ah - Chungpa -



Yes I understand you. Science is indeed wonderful.

Image
Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate bodhi svaha
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by dzogchungpa »

joy&peace wrote:Ah - Chungpa -



Yes I understand you. Science is indeed wonderful.

Image
mmm-mango-oranges.jpg
mmm-mango-oranges.jpg (69.17 KiB) Viewed 2868 times
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
User avatar
climb-up
Posts: 1187
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:32 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by climb-up »

Malcolm wrote:
climb-up wrote: I suspect that you are not particularly upset, but I do apologize.
No apology necessary.
Wonderful, I'm glad to hear it :smile:
And no, the ramblings of people in the internet don't upset me.
:heart: ...
Wait a second!...
:rolling:
"Death's second name is 'omnipresent.' On the relative truth it seems we become separate. But on the absolute there is no separation." Lama Dawa
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by Malcolm »

Grigoris wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Would you like me to be less "fundamentalist?"

I have said for many, many, many, years, over and over again that there is no liberation outside the Dharma of the Buddha. Not sure why this surprises you.
Well, for starters you went through an anti-Buddhist phase for quite a while, but we'll leave that aside for now... :tongue:

I was never anti-Buddhist, and I still don't necessarily identify as a Buddhist, since that means too many things to too many different people. I am however and have always claimed to be a follower of Buddhadharma.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by Malcolm »

Grigoris wrote:it would benefit you to deal with these flaws.
If I were in the business of evangelizing Buddhism to nonBuddhists it might, but since I am not, and since I have no interest in doing so, it is no benefit to me at all to raise here arguments I might raise with a nonbuddhist.
Jeff H
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by Jeff H »

Malcolm wrote:
Jeff H wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Indeed, therefore, pick your view — and thus your realization and liberation— carefully. If you are interested in liberation in this lifetime, you would not want to make an error in your choice.

If you are an all-oner, you are lost before you have even begun on a path.
I have found my vehicle and I’m implementing it to the best of my ability. But a path implies stages of development. I believe that having the causes and conditions to receive buddhadharma implies lifetimes of prior preparation, just as progressing in buddhadharma implies gradual, step-wise changes over time. This position is based on the fact that the practical presentation of Buddhism that convinced me initially was lam rim. My path is evolving. Believing that I have found, what is for me, the exclusive path is quite a different thing than flatly concluding that every other path is utterly futile.
That really depends on how much confidence one has in sūtra and tantra about the distinction between paths of samsara and paths of nirvana. There is a reason we use the term "tīrthika."

And need I remind everyone again that the Buddha is quite firm about the impossibility of liberation outside of Buddha's Dharmavinaya.
I agree that liberation requires buddhadharma. But I believe there are paths that constitute a prelude to Buddha's path.
Malcolm wrote:
But I still think I needed Christianity to bring me to Buddhism.
No, you came to Buddhadharma because of past life accumulations and aspirations to meet the Dharma again in future lives. In other words, you had already met the Dharma.
Does this mean there are no conditions for meeting the Dharma initially? Do you mean that everyone, in all six realms, who is not liberated now has previously met Dharma, fallen from it, and needs to re-enter by means of aspirations and accumulations? Or are some beings excluded from liberation?

My position arises from the experience of this life, where I've felt like I've been looking for "something" since I was a kid. Nevertheless, it took me 59 years to discover Buddhism. I look back on all the prior experiences of this life as bringing me to that important experience. I don't deny that means I had past-life buddhadharma experience, but in this life I needed some remedial experiences before I could reconnect. With what I've learned so far, I extrapolate that in previous lives we experience things that are not buddhadharma but nevertheless help prepare the causes and conditions to meet it and accept it.
Where now is my mind engaged? - Shantideva
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by Malcolm »

Jeff H wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Jeff H wrote: I have found my vehicle and I’m implementing it to the best of my ability. But a path implies stages of development. I believe that having the causes and conditions to receive buddhadharma implies lifetimes of prior preparation, just as progressing in buddhadharma implies gradual, step-wise changes over time. This position is based on the fact that the practical presentation of Buddhism that convinced me initially was lam rim. My path is evolving. Believing that I have found, what is for me, the exclusive path is quite a different thing than flatly concluding that every other path is utterly futile.
That really depends on how much confidence one has in sūtra and tantra about the distinction between paths of samsara and paths of nirvana. There is a reason we use the term "tīrthika."

And need I remind everyone again that the Buddha is quite firm about the impossibility of liberation outside of Buddha's Dharmavinaya.
I agree that liberation requires buddhadharma. But I believe there are paths that constitute a prelude to Buddha's path.
Malcolm wrote:
But I still think I needed Christianity to bring me to Buddhism.
No, you came to Buddhadharma because of past life accumulations and aspirations to meet the Dharma again in future lives. In other words, you had already met the Dharma.
Does this mean there are no conditions for meeting the Dharma initially?
The precondition for meeting the Dharma is a human birth with the eight freedoms and ten endowments, nothing else. The precondition for that is avoiding the ten nonvirtues and practicing the ten virtues. Other religions have nothing do with it, beyond the extent to which they encourage virtuous behavior.

Do you mean that everyone, in all six realms, who is not liberated now has previously met Dharma, fallen from it, and needs to re-enter by means of aspirations and accumulations? Or are some beings excluded from liberation?
I don't think implied that.
With what I've learned so far, I extrapolate that in previous lives we experience things that are not buddhadharma but nevertheless help prepare the causes and conditions to meet it and accept it.
See above. If faith in Jesus, Allah, Krishna, and so on help one to be a virtuous and kind person, one might indeed experience the result of a human birth with the eight freedoms and ten endowments. But it has nothing to do with faith in these nonBuddhist teachers and everything to do with practicing the ten virtues. But the practice of the ten virtues and compassion will not by themselves lead to liberation. Liberation requires insight into the nature of reality, emptiness.
Jeff H
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by Jeff H »

Malcolm wrote:The precondition for meeting the Dharma is a human birth with the eight freedoms and ten endowments, nothing else. The precondition for that is avoiding the ten nonvirtues and practicing the ten virtues. Other religions have nothing do with it, beyond the extent to which they encourage virtuous behavior.

If faith in Jesus, Allah, Krishna, and so on help one to be a virtuous and kind person, one might indeed experience the result of a human birth with the eight freedoms and ten endowments. But it has nothing to do with faith in these nonBuddhist teachers and everything to do with practicing the ten virtues. But the practice of the ten virtues and compassion will not by themselves lead to liberation. Liberation requires insight into the nature of reality, emptiness.
This I can understand. Thanks.
Where now is my mind engaged? - Shantideva
PeterC
Posts: 5173
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: ChNN on Jesus?

Post by PeterC »

Grigoris wrote: "We are right because we say we are right..." just doesn't cut it.
This is a very important point that perhaps has been insufficiently discussed in this thread.

I do believe that there is a fundamental difference between the Buddhadharma and most other religions on this point - let's take Christianity, to keep it simple. In most denominations what "makes you a christian" is assent to the articles of faith and acceptance of the sacrament if baptism. In other words, belief precedes experience. There are reams of theology in most churches about the necessity of belief - that God does not fully reveal himself in the world so that we can have faith and thus be justified through it. (I know I'm simplifying but this is close enough.)

The dharma is not the same. For the Hinayana and the common Mahayana at least, the articles of faith are to be realized through experience. Right view is something investigated and verified through practice and not an exogenous philosophical stance that must precede practice. Of course the uncommon Mahayana has a different point of departure, but again experience gained through practice is necessary, belief is insufficient. Saying refuge or ye dharma is not the same as saying the Athanasian creed.

If there is fundamentalism in the dharma it is a very different kind of fundamentalism from that exhibited in Christianity.

But as to the essential incompatibility of the two - that just is what it is: hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders.
Last edited by PeterC on Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”