Can other religions/philosophies/practises complement Buddhadharma?

[DGA]

Malcolm like our last interaction Im not speaking from the viewpoint of scripture but from personal experience, there might not be DO outside of Buddhist scripture but that doesnt mean it is not taught. I assume your relationship and practise with teachers isnt based on sutra study alone.

When you say you are speaking from experience that there is something in the Buddhist teaching that is not correct... are you also claiming at the same time that your own realization is greater than that of the Buddha?

If I have misunderstood you, please let me know.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Dharma practice itself requires a lot of dedication, and at least a little study, there is only so much time.

So first we need to define what is meant by "compliment".

The positions of other philosophies all amount to nihilism or eternalism, both of which the Buddha explicitly rejects in so many places it isn't even worth counting.

It doesn't mean there is nothing useful there, it means that whatever IS useful in other traditions, it is not the same stuff which leads to liberation in Dharma.

[Lucas Oliveira]

in the first moment: all religions are equal pursuing the same goal

second: they have some different technical names maybe with different goals

Third, all religions are helping people to live their lives better. development of virtues

[MiphamFan]

in the first moment: all religions are equal pursuing the same goal

second: they have some different technical names maybe with different goals

Third, all religions are helping people to live their lives better. development of virtues

Citation needed.

[DGA]

Dharma practice itself requires a lot of dedication, and at least a little study, there is only so much time.

So first we need to define what is meant by "compliment".

The positions of other philosophies all amount to nihilism or eternalism, both of which the Buddha explicitly rejects in so many places it isn't even worth counting.

It doesn't mean there is nothing useful there, it means that whatever IS useful in other traditions, it is not the same stuff which leads to liberation in Dharma.

This is an interesting topic.

It's worthwhile to consider the ways in which specific practices can be adapted and mobilized for use in Dharma contexts. These include, but are not limited to:

*sang and lungta in Vajrayana

*the use of martial arts in some Zen schools

*elements of the Kaihogyo practice in the Tendai school

and some practices that were later developed by Dharma practitioners in later contexts, such as koan practice

[Motova]

Hypnosis.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Dharma practice itself requires a lot of dedication, and at least a little study, there is only so much time.

So first we need to define what is meant by "compliment".

The positions of other philosophies all amount to nihilism or eternalism, both of which the Buddha explicitly rejects in so many places it isn't even worth counting.

It doesn't mean there is nothing useful there, it means that whatever IS useful in other traditions, it is not the same stuff which leads to liberation in Dharma.

This is an interesting topic.

It's worthwhile to consider the ways in which specific practices can be adapted and mobilized for use in Dharma contexts. These include, but are not limited to:

*sang and lungta in Vajrayana

*the use of martial arts in some Zen schools

*elements of the Kaihogyo practice in the Tendai school

and some practices that were later developed by Dharma practitioners in later contexts, such as koan practice

Yes, but those practices are done under the auspices of holding a view that accords with the various levels of the teaching, by themselves they are just activities. For instance, you could practice something like sang in another tradition and it could be "shamanism" or some such thing, interacting with worldy spirits for it's own sake or some such. it is these practices being subsumed under a Buddhist view and/or intent that makes them Buddhist, not so much their content when removed from that view, they become something else in that case.

[Lucas Oliveira]

in the first moment: all religions are equal pursuing the same goal

second: they have some different technical names maybe with different goals

Third, all religions are helping people to live their lives better. development of virtues

Citation needed.

1

For Catholics God is immortal

for Hindus to be brahma or krisnha is to attain immortality

for Buddhists the goal is the immortal, nirvana

2

the skies of Catholics can be waterproof

Hindus talk about atman

the anatman buddhists

3

Catholics are seeking to live their lives well

Hindus also

Buddhists also

...

1: superficial knowledge

2: technical knowledge

3: practicing

[MiphamFan]

Gross simplifications.

Right in your reply itself you admit that Hindus seek the atman while Buddhists talk about ANatman.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Not with intention to ruffle any more feathers ..

I personally think there is no inherent contradiction between believing in DO (to understand punarbhava) and Buddha's teachings and also believing in "the underlying natural order of the Universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe due to it being non conceptual yet evident" and/or "single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe."

I have little knowledge and maybe wrong. But I am strong believer in ehipassiko and I believe Buddha disliked blind faith (even blind faith in his teachings). Shouting from rooftops, "I believe in DO" at top of my voice will not make me a better or greater Buddhist .. following the path will.

It is nice to be part of this forum. Thank you all for the warm and noisy welcome

A detailed discussion of how Buddhism differs from other faiths does not necessarily benefit any given practitioner at any time...however, it is most certainly there in in the teaching (Theravada as well as Mahayana/Vajrayana). I imagine each practitioner has to decide for themselves (and hopefully the help of mentors/teachers) when or if studying such refutations of other views is useful, but they are most certainly recorded as being the words of the Buddha in scriptures (again, Pali and Mahayana sources). I don't assume these things are interesting or useful for all practitioners at all times.

In my own experience, interest in this sort of thing correlates to how weary I am of samsara;) It is not a place that everyone starts from, nor do I imagine it's a place where everyone "finishes" either; but there is real value in understanding how Buddhadharma distinguishes itself from other paths which claim to teach some sort of liberation. If it were not, then I assume the Buddha would have not mentioned it.

If it does not make sense to someone right now to study such things, then they shouldn't study them...it's as simple as that really. I will say though that anyone who studies Buddhist view in any kind of detail (even for me, and I am particularly not well read or educated) will eventually have to reckon with them, refutations of other schools are all over Sutras and Suttas, much less commentaries etc.

[Lucas Oliveira]

Gross simplifications.

Right in your reply itself you admit that Hindus seek the atman while Buddhists talk about ANatman.

Yes

many Catholics developed virtues before finding the Buddha's teachings and this helped these people on the Buddhist path

the same with Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists and various people of other religions.

so I think it right to say that other religions can help people on the Buddhist path.

[Malcolm]

Gross simplifications.

Right in your reply itself you admit that Hindus seek the atman while Buddhists talk about ANatman.

Yes

many Catholics developed virtues before finding the Buddha's teachings and this helped these people on the Buddhist path

the same with Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists and various people of other religions.

so I think it right to say that other religions can help people on the Buddhist path.

Religions, including Buddhism, are only as good or bad, kind or mean, as the people who practice them.

The realization of Buddhadharma is unsurpassable in meaning and benefit.

[Lucas Oliveira]

Gross simplifications.

Right in your reply itself you admit that Hindus seek the atman while Buddhists talk about ANatman.

Yes

many Catholics developed virtues before finding the Buddha's teachings and this helped these people on the Buddhist path

the same with Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists and various people of other religions.

so I think it right to say that other religions can help people on the Buddhist path.

Religions, including Buddhism, are only as good or bad, kind or mean, as the people who practice them.

The realization of Buddhadharma is unsurpassable in meaning and benefit.

with the Catholic Church I learn the power of prayer

spiritual doctrine learn about the spiritual world

Hinduism learn about my divine essence

Buddhism I learned that I can transcend this all

Taoism to cultivate my vital energies to follow these paths.

Anguttara Nikaya III.78

Silabbata Sutta

Precept & Practice

Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, “Ananda, every precept & practice, every life, every holy life that is followed as of essential worth: is every one of them fruitful?”

“Lord, that is not [to be answered] with a categorical answer.”

“In that case, Ananda, give an analytical answer.”

“When—by following a life of precept & practice, a life, a holy life that is followed as of essential worth—one’s unskillful mental qualities increase while one’s skillful mental qualities decline: that sort of precept & practice, life, holy life that is followed as of essential worth is fruitless. But when—by following a life of precept & practice, a life, a holy life that is followed as of essential worth—one’s unskillful mental qualities decline while one’s skillful mental qualities increase: that sort of precept & practice, life, holy life that is followed as of essential worth is fruitful.”

That is what Ven. Ananda said, and the Teacher approved. Then Ven. Ananda, [realizing,] “The Teacher approves of me,” got up from his seat and, having bowed down to the Blessed One and circumambulating him, left.

Then not long after Ven. Ananda had left, the Blessed One said to the monks, “Monks, Ananda is still in training, but it would not be easy to find his equal in discernment.”

https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.78

[Fortyeightvows]

in the first moment: all religions are equal pursuing the same goal

second: they have some different technical names maybe with different goals

Third, all religions are helping people to live their lives better. development of virtues

Citation needed.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Since we're trying to quote Pali sources to argue some kind of universalism...I'll just leave this here, clearly, either the Buddha taught that "all religions are one" (or however you want to frame it), or he didn't. It appears to me that he definitely didn't.

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an ... .than.html

Of course, none of that precludes respect for other paths or their afolks in any way, it just means we should be well aware of our own path, by my reading.

[Tiago Simões]

Other religions have been mixing and synchronizing with Buddhism since long ago. Like Greco-Buddhism, greeks gods would be worshiped as protectors of Dharma and portrayed alongside the Buddha. Sometimes these greeks gods would be identified has Indian gods as well, like Zeus an Indra, supposedly. I guess Zeus could have also been Vajrapani since they both hold a thunderbolt like thing in their hands.

But did they hold non-buddhist greek views? Did they still believe these gods were creators? Who knows...

On that note, since greek gods were identified as Indian gods long ago, then that would mean they can be viewed as such today, no? However they are seen has dead gods... Not by everyone, but let's not get into neo-pagan authenticity debates.

Actually, and I just though about this, If we say for example, Indra is Zeus, than Buddhism is the only spiritual lineage that still recognises Zeus. Making Buddhism the only living inheritor of the greek pantheon.

[anjali]

Setting aside the issue of other religions and buddhism (which is a perennial favorite for discussion), I'd like to get some feedback about different philosophies. There are a number of books and papers that attempt to compare and contrast various western philosophical traditions with Buddhism. For example, on my bookshelf I have,

Buddhist Existentialism,
Buddhist Phenomenology: A Philosophical Investigation of Yogacara Buddhism and the Ch'eng Wei-shih Lun, and
Emptiness and Becoming: Integrating Madhayamaka Buddhism and Process Philosophy

To what extent have you found exploring the intersection with western philosophies helpful in understanding, or expanding your understanding, of key Buddhist concepts?

[pael]

nonbuddhist masters, the height of their wisdom and words do not even reach the bottom slopes of the Buddha's incomparable wisdom.

Dao De Jing:

The Reason that can be reasoned
is not the eternal Reason.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

Could you tell wiser words than these, please?
Is it definition of Ultimate Truth or Emptiness?
Laotzu wasn't Buddhist.

[Brunelleschi]

This means there are no realized people at all outside of Buddhadharma.

You might have not met them, just like the Buddha might have not in his time locally. Also it would defy the use of religion (sadly) if sutras would indicate that it would be otherwise, it's just politics. Also there is zero proof that is what the Buddha actually said neither of us can know this, it's an assumption. My interest in sutras is those who are conductive to awakening, not about notions if there are realized ppl outside of Buddhadharma. It isn't conducive to awakening to dwell upon not prattle about whether it is so or not, I remain open minded.

To say there's "zero proof" is just absurd. If you don't believe in the validity of the sutras that's fine - however, your lack of faith doesn't equate "zero proof". Oral history has been recorded verbatim for a long time. This was the case in Islam for example (The Quran is not actually a book).

[Mantrik]

Religions, including Buddhism, are only as good or bad, kind or mean, as the people who practice them.

The realization of Buddhadharma is unsurpassable in meaning and benefit.

That's the critical distinction, well made, and accords with the title of the topic.

It is not about whether religions can complement each other, but about complementing Buddhadharma.

It seems pretty clear that there may be lots of nice things people do, related to religions, which do not conflict with Buddhadharma, but they are not necessarily taking anyone along a path to anywhere.

If you have no idea what you want, you can dabble and play until you do, as at least one young member here seems to be doing, but need to stop believing they are also on the path to enlightenment.

However, as you and Simon have already stated succinctly, it is pointless to pursue two paths if the destination you seek may only be reached by one. You can't complement one path by, at best, wasting time on another.