dorjeshonnu wrote:Significantly, Buddha-tantra with its lineage teachings is explicitly a subdivision within Mahayana practice, which is entirely consonant with the (developed) principles of several early Buddhist schools of thought. These early schools, and the basis of Mahayana practice are entirely explicit
It's a bit OT, but... are you sure they're that explicit? The history seems to suggest otherwise - sticking to non-tantric Mahayana only, we've got Tathagatagarbha, Cittamatra, Madhyamika to mention only the most influential trends, all coming in endless varieties, all quarrelling with each other, all using scriptural evidence to support the claim that their sole position constitutes the only true exegesis of Shakyamuni's words. The words which appear to have been quite ambiguous indeed, all in all.
The core difference between, say, Christianity and Vajrayana may be that in Vajrayana you've got unbroken transmission - there are instructions and treatises as well as living breathing people who know how to read their twilight language. It might well be that there used to be, but no longer are, such people in Christianity. We can't know, of course. But it's a possibility several scholars consider very probable, pointing to the Gnostic origins of Christianity, whose initial sects were very much esoteric.
dorjeshonnu wrote:Yes, it is reconstruction.
We don't know that. Or, to be more precise, it surely is a reconstruction, but we don't know exactly of what. But the 'mystical' trend (in many varieties) is sure to have been in Christianity since 2nd century - and earlier Christianity was just a multitude of totally disorganised and centreless movements, some, and quite possibly many, of which were Gnostic.
dorjeshonnu wrote: Again, if we are discussing the views of people, we are no longer discussing religions per se.
That may be our bone of contention. I see no point in discussing religions per se, because I don't believe there is such a thing as Christianity or Buddhism per se - these are just entirely abstract, paper categories any discussion of which may be fun, if one is into that kind of thing, but will provide no useful insight into what's going on. I am a thorough nominalist here, I'm afraid.
dorjeshonnu wrote: I do not keep track with theologians, but you would have to provide good references for me to take your statement about them seriously, as it is not characteristic of theology.
Try Tillich, arguably
the 20th century Christian theologian.
Incidentally Tillich argues that his reading of God as the Ground of Being was not only Eckhart's or John of the Cross's perspective, but also the standard view of the Desert Fathers. He never convinced me here, I must confess, but then I'm too biased and resentful towards monotheism to investigate the matter sufficiently. Who knows, maybe he's onto something?
dorjeshonnu wrote:There is in fact a single Bible-based faith system, defined in common by and for Christians, based on the Nicene creed - what there is not is consensus on all points of theology, which is not in fact necessary (for a faith "system") and is not being argued here.
Oh come on, the Nicene creed doesn't make you a Christian, it makes you an
orthodox Christian (and at any rate by no means all branches of Christianity, historical or contemporary, subscribe to it - look at the Quakers)! There really is a huge difference here. And there are also sometimes wildly diverging readings of the creed itself.
dorjeshonnu wrote:There is a 'common substratum' to each monotheist doctrine - the attribution of primary cause to a Creator Deity, from whom all subsequent and resultant cause and effect must stem.
Again, read Tillich and check out his construal of the creator deity as the Ground of Being - or his understanding of creatio ex nihilo (or, I've been told, the traditional understanding of the latter in Eastern Orthodox Church). Or check any big names of postmodern theology, or death-of-god theology, or weak theology - Sponge, Cupitt, Caputo, Vattimo, etc. Or, for that matter, the leading names of liberation theology, who openly claim that praxis overrules all doctrine and reject the need to preserve the integrity of the church from non-Christian influences. Your vision of Christianity is one which Catholic traditionalists or Protestant fundamentalists would endorse. But there is a liberal wing, too - which very nearly dominates the CoE, for instance.
Btw, just to make sure I'm not misread: I am
not arguing that Buddhism and Christianity are one, or necessarily lead to one and the same kind of realization, or even that they both must lead to some realization.