Question: "What is Buddhism and what do Buddhists believe?"

[stoogecristi]

hence men and women only need look inward for deliverance. "Since Buddhism does not have a God, it cannot have somebody who is regarded as God's prophet or messiah."[16] Buddhism, then, is:

atheistic practically speaking,
agnostic, in that most Buddhists don't really care if a supreme God exists (irrespective of the polytheism of later Buddhism),and
anti-theistic in that belief in a supreme Creator God as in Christianity is something evil because it prohibits personal liberation.
We now turn to a discussion of Buddhist and Christian philosophy where these ideas and their implications are seen more fully.

Notes
 For a description of these in more detail see Richard A. Gard (ed.), Buddhism (NY: George Braziller, Inc., 1961), pp. 106-167.
 F.L. Woodward, trans., Some Sayings of the Buddha (NY: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 124-125.
 Alexandria David-Neel, Buddhism Its Doctrines and Its Methods (NY: St. Martin's Press, 1977), p. 25; Charles Prebish, "Doctrines of Early Buddhists," in Buddhism: A Modern Perspective (ed.), Charles S. Prebish (University Park & London: Pennsylvania University Press, 1975), p. 30.
 The Teaching of Buddha, p.88.
 Ibid., rev., 1988, pp. 84-104.
 See e.g., T.O. Ling, A Dictionary of Buddhism: A Guide to Thought and Tradition (NY: Charles Schribners' Sons, 1972), pp. 96-97.
 Ibid., pp. 156-158.
 Nyanatiloka, Buddhist Dictionary (Colombo, Ceylon: Frewin and Company, Ltd., 1972), pp. 105-107.
 The Teaching of Buddha, p. 112.
 J.N.D. Anderson (ed.), The World's Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1968), p. 124. See the Dhyayitamushti-sutra quoted in The History of Buddhist Thought, Edward J. Thomas, (London: Reutledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, 1975), p. 223.
 Edward J. Thomas, The History of Buddhist Thought, p. 218. He cites, Sutta-Nipata 1119; Majjhima 121, 122 Samy. iv, 54; the two Prajnaparmita-hrdaya-sutras, etc.
 Edward Conze et al. (eds.), Buddhist Texts Through the Ages (NY: Philosophical Libary, Inc., 1954), p. 212 citing Lankavatara Sutra, 90-96.
 Ibid., pp. 215-216 citing Asanga Mahayanasamgraha II, 27, including Vasubandhu's comments.
 TB, p. 86.
 Hendrik Kraemer, The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publ., 1977), pp. 174-175, 177.
 Walt Anderson, Open Secrets, A Western Guide to Tibetan Buddhism (NY: Viking Press, 1979), p. 23.

[stoogecristi]

In buddhism man has no savior but himself.

În prealabil postat de stoogecristi

In buddhism man has no savior but himself.

Asta nu suna asa rau, sa fiu sincer. Poate fi chiar inspirational :)

[AlinB]

Pentru un ateu, poate.
E dovada ca si ateismul poate fi o religie :)

În prealabil postat de AlinB

Pentru un ateu, poate.
E dovada ca si ateismul poate fi o religie :)

Intr-adevar! Orice crez poate fi transformat in religie daca exista cineva, undeva, care o face intr-un mod "organizat".

Spre surprinderea mea, am aflat ca exista biserici atee (da, chiar asa isi zic, athiest churches) in statele unite. Mi se pare amuzant, dar si ingrijorator pentru intelectul rasei umane...

Oricum, sintagma aceea poate fi ceva motivational in a te face sa muncesti pentru ceea ce iti doresti.

[stoogecristi]

Buddhism has little directly to say about Jesus. It does acknowledge that He was a great person. On the other hand, there is a sense in which Buddhism explicitly rejects Jesus Christ.



As a whole, Buddhism has little directly to say about Jesus Christ. It does acknowledge what most men do: that He was a great person. For the most part however, His Gospel teachings are largely ignored and a more convenient Jesus is accepted: one who, along with the Buddha, smiles serenely.

But on the other hand, there is a sense in which Buddhism explicitly rejects Jesus Christ. What Christian belief in a personal Savior from sin represents to Buddhism is a serious form of personal ignorance. Personal Savior? No "person" exists. So what is there to save? And no genuine Savior can exist either, for we must ultimately save ourselves. The central message of Christianity (Jn. 3:16) is thus dismissed as remnants of beclouded consciousness.

After all, one could expect that in Buddhism the biblical Christ would be rather objectionable, for he rejects what Buddhism accepts and accepts what Buddhism rejects. He stresses sin and repentance before God (Jn. 5:34; Mt. 4:17). He believes in a loving, infinite-personal Creator who makes moral demands upon and judges His creatures (Lk. 12:5). He denies the possibility of self-perfection and refers to himself alone as the Savior of the world (Mt. 20:28; 26:28; Jn. 6:29, 47; 14:6). He not only believes in a creator God, the creator God is His personal Father (Jn. 14:5-6); He is God's unique and only Son (Jn. 3:16, 18). Spiritual enlightenment and salvation come only by Him (Jn. 14:6) because Jesus is "the true light" of the world (Jn. 1:9; 8:12; 12:46). It is impossible that these could come through Buddha and his philosophy, or through Bodhisattvas and their sacrifice of remaining in the world, or through any other self-achieving method (cf., Mt. 19:24-26). Jesus Christ utterly rejects polytheism and paganism (e.g., Mt. 6:7; 22:37; Lk. 4:8). His worldview is thoroughly based on moral absolutes and it is by His moral standards that all creatures, heavenly and earthly, will be judged and required to give an account (Jn. 5:22-29; Col. 1:16-18; Lk. 10:19-20; 1 Cor. 6:3). Jesus accepted the permanency (Mt. 25:46) and utility of suffering (Heb. 2:10; 5:10)--indeed it is by suffering alone that the world is redeemed and through which (in part) God sanctifies His people (1 Pet. 2:21, 24; 3:18; 4:1; Phil. 3:10).

Although ecumenically minded people would find it difficult to accept, the Jesus Christ of history is not merely un-Buddhist; He is anti-Buddhist. If we could bring Jesus and Buddha together for a discussion, neither Jesus nor Gautama would find the other's worldview acceptable. According to Christ, Buddha would certainly not have been spiritually enlightened--far from it. His rejection of a creator God would classify him as a pagan unbeliever, however adept he was at philosophical speculation. Again, "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God" (Ps. 14:1). Men who deny God's existence deny the obvious and would thus require repentance and faith in the one true God (Jn. 17:3). In other words, Jesus' view of Buddha is that he would require salvation--just like everyone else.

And conversely, Buddha would have no need for Christ as Savior, for Buddha taught total, unswerving self-reliance. As we quoted earlier, "Rely upon yourself: do not depend on anyone else." Compare this with Jeremiah 17:5--"Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord." Thus, in discussing Buddhism's appeal to modern man, Stephen Neill is correct in observing that this appeal is based squarely upon prideful self-sufficiency:

For the modern man one of the most attractive things in this scheme is that in it he is entirely cast back upon himself. "Therefore, O Ananda, take the self as a lamp; take the self as a refuge. Betake yourselves to no external refuges. Hold fast as a refuge to the truth. Look not for refuge to anyone besides yourself. Work out your own salvation with diligence." So the Maha-Parinibbana-Sutta, one of the most famous of Buddhist classics....The Buddha attained to enlightenment by his own intense concentration; he called in no help from any god or savior. So it must be with the disciple. God has been abolished, at least as far as any possibility of a practical relationship to him is concerned. There is no hope for a man outside of himself--or rather in his inner apprehension of the meaning of the Buddha, the Law and the Order. "Man for himself." That is the modern mood. The last thing that a modern man desires is to be told that he needs to be saved, or that he requires the help of a savior....So naturally Buddhism has attractive power....[1]
Whereas Theravada views the Buddha as an enlightened man (more enlightened, no doubt, than the biblical Christ, but still a man) Mahayanists have placed Buddha on the level of a divine being who rivals Christ in his deity, although still falling far short of the biblical concept.

The Mahayana text Matrceta Satapancasatkastotra I, 2-4 states of Buddha: "To go to him for refuge, to praise and to honor him, to abide in his religion, that is fit for those with sense. The only Protector, he is without faults or their residues; The all-knowing, he has all the virtues, and that without fail. For even the spiteful cannot find with any justice any fault in the Lord--in his thought, words or deeds."[2]

The Lotus Sutra (Saddharmapundarika) says of him "He thus becomes the Saviour of the world with its Gods" (XXIV, 17).[3]

Finally, in the area of miraculous, we find another disagreement with Christian faith: "It may be fairly said that Buddhism is not a miraculous religion in the sense that none of its central doctrines depend on miracles."[4]

By contrast how many Christological themes or doctrines depend upon the miraculous? Messianic prophecy (Isa. 9:6; Ps. 22), the incarnation (Phil. 2), virgin birth (Mt. 1:25), Christ's miracles as proof of his Messiahship (Mt. 8:15-17), the miracles associated with the crucifixion (Mt. 27:50-53), resurrection (Lk. 24:36-39) atonement/new birth (e.g., the miracle of regeneration), the ascension (Acts 1:9-10), the second coming (Mt. 24), etc. The differences are again striking.

In conclusion, Buddha and Jesus are not just a little bit short of being friends. The suffering and exaltation of Christ is hardly equivalent to the serene peacefulness of the Buddha entering nirvana. Jesus came to save the world, not himself (Jn. 12:27). Indeed, Jesus said, "He that would save his life will lose it" (Mt. 16:25). He obeyed and glorified the very God whom Buddha so contentedly and forcefully rejected (Jn. 17:4).

@stoogecristi

Sa inteleg ca ai avut o altercatie mai putin placuta recent cu un budist? Sau audienta ta tinta consta intr-un anumit membru al forumului, poate un oltean pe care l-am sarbatorit de florii?

[stoogecristi]

Buddha is quoted as saying, “analyze as far as possible and see whether what I’m saying makes sense or not. If it doesn’t make sense, discard it….” Ankerberg and Weldon look at some of the Buddha’s teachings to see if they “make sense.”

The weaknesses of Buddhism are so vast and the strengths of Christianity so powerful that anyone with a grasp of the details of Buddhist and Christian philosophy should at least be able to give their Buddhist friends something to think about. Clive Erricker, a lecturer and prolific writer in the field of religious studies with a special interest in Buddhism, writes accurately of the Buddha when he discusses what the Buddha did not claim. In stark contrast to Jesus (See appendix): "Indeed, he did not even claim that his teachings were a unique and original source of wisdom;....[Citing John Bowker in Worlds of Faith, 1983] Buddha always said, 'Don't take what I'm saying [i.e., on my own authority], just try to analyze as far as possible and see whether what I'm saying makes sense or not. If it doesn't make sense, discard it. If it does make sense, then pick it up.'"[1]

In the material below, we will employ the Buddha's own admonition and see whether or not what he taught "makes sense." If it does not, we must also follow his admonition and discard his teaching. To begin, let's consider the following statement by noted theologian J. I. Packer in light of what we know about Buddhism so far:

God's world is never friendly to those who forget its Maker. The Buddhists, who link their atheism with a thorough pessimism about life, are to that extent correct. Without God, man loses his bearings in this world. He cannot find them again until he has found the One whose world it is. It is natural that non-believers feel their existence is pointless and miserable....God made life, and God alone can tell us its meaning. If we are to make sense of life in this world, then, we must know about God. And if we want to know about God, we must turn to the Bible.[2]
Buddhism, of course rejects both God and the Bible and thus finds itself in the dilemma mentioned by Packer. So how do we attempt to reach Buddhists who reject so much that is Christian? By stressing what the Buddhist has no possibility of rejecting: his creation in the image of God and all this implies.

Arguments against Buddhism (historical, logical, theological) will not necessarily persuade the convinced Buddhist, many of whom have little love for logic, though they may be effective with a recent Western convert to Buddhism. They do, nevertheless, help the Christian to emphasize the differences between Buddhism and Christianity and to strengthen the Christian's own conviction as to the truth of his faith.

One of the most fundamental problems in Buddhism is that no one is certain what "True Buddhism" is. First, the manuscript evidence is far too late and unreliable. Buddha's words were never recorded. It is therefore impossible to ascertain if what we have are the genuine words of Buddha, or merely those of his unenlightened disciples centuries later. ("While the [illusory] surroundings created by Buddha are pure and free from defilement, those created by ordinary men are not so." Second, the manuscripts we do possess are so contradictory one despairs of ever finding truth. Charles Prebish is Professor of Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University and editor of Buddhism: A Modern Perspective. In his essay, he points out that Buddha told his disciples they could "abolish all the lesser and minor precepts."[3] Unfortunately, he never identified them, leading to great confusion among his disciples and innumerable sects. Buddhism has thousands of works that claim the authority of the Buddha and yet contain endlessly contrary teachings. So where does the Buddhist turn to find truth?

Then there are the many internal contradictions of Buddhist philosophy. As Buddhist scholar Edward Conze noted in Buddhist Thought in India, the Mahayanists "prefer lucid paradoxes which always remain mindful of logic and deliberately defy it. For they do not mind contradictiong themselves."[4] Buddhism teaches reincarnation but denies the soul, so what can possibly reincarnate? Spiritually "enlightened" Bodhisattvas vow to work for the enlightenment of all beings, fully knowing such beings never existed to begin with. So how can we grant "wisdom" among those who forsake nirvana to have compassion on non-entities? Why should enlightened beings toy with illusions? And why help save a thing which, according to Buddhist philosophy, must save itself solely by its own efforts? But it doesn't really matter, for nothing is saved and no soul exists to be enlightened. Then what of the Buddha and his mission? Does it have any relevance? And then what of Buddhism--what's the point to all its efforts? The truth is, given Buddhist assumptions, it makes no difference at all whether Buddha, Bodhisattvas, or Buddhism ever existed. They do absolutely nothing for the world and they are as much an illusion as everything else.

There are many other contradictions. By definition, sense perceptions do not exist in Nirvana. What then exists to perceive nirvana? And even in samsara, without a soul what permanently exists to perceive suffering? And how can samsara possibly be nirvana? Or, how can Buddhism logically uphold morality when its own philosophy requires it to conclude that even the most noble and virtuous actions can be evil-- because all unenlightened actions produce suffering and self-defeating karma by definition. Conversely, by definition, the enlightened, supposedly, can do no evil. But is this what we see among the ranks of the enlightened? To the contrary! They are as subject to evil as the rest of us, often even moreso, if the reports of former disciples are to be believed.[5]

One of the greatest problems of Buddhism is its logically derived social apathy. Professor of Religion Robert E. Hume was correct when he wrote in The World's Living Religions that, in one sense, "the main trend in Buddhist ethics is negative, repressive, quietistic, non-social."[6] Christmas Humphreys, the influential Western Buddhist admits this but seems to argue that the alleged self satisfaction offered by Buddhism is reason enough to become a Buddhist: "It may be asked, what contribution Buddhism is making to world problems, national problems, social problems, appearing among every group of men. The answer is as clear as it is perhaps unique. Comparatively speaking, none. And the reason is clear. One man at peace within lives happily."[7]

But a man content and at peace with himself who does nothing for anyone is perhaps the worst man of all. Personal contentment is hardly sufficient reason to remain indifferent to the world's problems. Jesus Christ provides all the personal contentment one can ask for, but he also commanded his disciples to be salt and light in the world. Jesus impells men and women into society to help others not only to achieve this same peace with God, but to help the poor, the needy, the discouraged, the lost by whatever means. The Christian loves his neighbor, and indeed all men, because the God who is there loves them also and because they are made in his image.(James 3:9-10). Because God cares, they care. Because He acts, they act.

[stoogecristi]

The Buddhist, perhaps, senses the indifference that ultimate reality has towards mankind and acts accordingly. If men are delusions, and Nirvana has no concern with them, why should the Buddhist? In fact, a number of Buddhists have recognized the superiority of Christianity at this point. Monk Shojun Bano confesses that "Buddhism is far behind Christianity...Buddhism should learn more from Christianity" while the noted popularizer of Buddhism in the West, D. T. Suzuki, agrees that "Buddhism has a great deal to learn from Christianity."[8]

But to learn from Christianity is a betrayal of Buddhism. Indeed, the reason Buddhism cannot logically show the compassion Christianity has is because Buddhist philosophy proscribes it. Likewise, the reason Christianity has done the world immeasurable good is because of its theology, illustrated in such scriptures as John 3:16, 1 Cor. 10:24, Romans 5:1-10, 1 Tim. 6:18, etc. The eminent Christian historian Kenneth S. Latourette was certainly correct when he wrote the following in Introducing Buddhism: "Christianity has been the source of far more movements and measures to fight chronic evils and improve the lot of mankind than has Buddhism....Christianity has been the motivating impetus behind anti-slavery campaigns, public health drives, relief activities in behalf of sufferers of war, and the establishment of the nursing profession. It has been responsible for the building of institutions to care for the mentally ill, hospitals, schools and universities, and for the reduction of more languages to writing than can be ascribed to all other forces put together....more than any other religion, it has made life this side of the grave richer."[9]

By comparison, Buddhism has done virtually nothing for the world. No Buddhist anywhere can logically escape the vast individual and social implications of his own philosophy. Again, if the ego is entirely illusory and exists only to be destroyed, why should any individual ego be loved and care for? Why should a society comprised of such egos be improved? Indeed, the frequently abominable political and social condition of Oriental peoples is largely the sad result of their own religions--which, for some reason, they now insist on bringing to the West. All this is not to say individual Buddhists never do social good. It is to say their philosophy cannot logically establish social concerns and that when this is achieved, they are acting more like Christians than Buddhists. In light of this, and by Buddha's own admonition, Buddhists should forsake Buddhism and become Christians (see closing paragraph to this section).

No one who enjoys life and understands what Christianity offers can logically think Buddhism offers more-- not even Buddhists. Christianity promises not just abundant life now, but a specific kind of abundant life forever. It offers a personal immortality in a perfected state of existence where all suffering and sin are forever vanquished and the redeemed exist forever with a loving God who has promised they will inherit all that is His. By contrast, Buddhism only promises an arduous, lengthy road toward personal non-existence in a nebulous nirvana. In essence, Christianity offers a gracious, instantaneous, free gift of eternal life that Buddhism can never offer.

Buddhism holds that this life, in the final sense, is ultimately not worth living since it is inseparable from suffering. But the core of Christian teaching is that this life, even with suffering, is eminently worth living. (See 1Pet. 4:19) "Life" is the goal--for God exists, He inhabits eternity and never changes, He is love and He loves us. He died for us that we might have life in a special way both now, and forever. He offers salvation from sin, not from life itself. He offers us an eternal heaven.

Thus, Jesus said He came that we might have life and that more abundantly (John 10:10). The Buddhist seeks to "avoid" life. Jesus taught He would redeem the personality, enrich it, and make it beautiful in every way. Buddhism begins by stating the personality is ultimately non-existent.

Consider the contrast provided by Clive Erricker in comparing the Buddhist nirvana and the Christian heaven: "There is a continuing selfhood in heaven which Nirvana denies; there is a tendency to understand heaven as a future state, following on from earthly life, that Nirvana is not; there is a belief that heaven is, at least to some degree, understandable in earthly terms, whereas, Nirvana is not even the opposite of Samsaric existence. Samsaric existence entails the cessation of everything. The problem we then have is that Nirvana sounds dreadfully negative, as though everything precious to us is denied and destroyed."[10]

Erricker's statements are true. Since the goal of Buddhism is to destroy the individual person, merely an illusion, everything precious to us as individuals is indeed "denied and destroyed." But notice the Buddhist response to this unlovely state of affairs: "The Buddhist response to this is that speculation of this kind is simply unhelpful."[11] In other words, Buddhist teaching does deny and destroy all that is meaningful to human existence but Buddhism has no answers as to the implications. It merely retreats into its particular world view declaring that critical evaluation is "unhelpful."

Former Buddhist J.I. Yamamoto observes: "My hunger and my thirst cannot be satisfied in Buddhism because I know that the Buddha neither created me nor offers for me to live forever with him....Beyond the Buddha is the void, and the void does not answer the needs of my humanity."[12] As one Buddhist convert to Christianity remarked, "I did not want nirvana. I wanted eternal life." Nor would most people, one assumes, want nirvana.

But there is a deeper issue in Buddhism that must be addressed--the real problem of humanity and the implications of Eastern notions of karmic "justice" and morality.

At this point, the Buddhist needs to understand that the problem of humanity is much deeper than ignorance or even suffering; the problem is sin--rebellion against God. He needs to understand the absolute necessity of forgiveness through Christ and the loving sacrifice He made at the cross. The Buddhist has never said, "nirvana is love" because love is foreign to Buddhist ultimate reality and to its gods. But it is not just that the Buddhist has never said "nirvana is love," it is that he logically cannot say it. Buddhist "love" is impersonal; it exists without relationships. But if a God of love really exists, why would one exchange this God for an impersonal Reality --and/or indifferent, and not infrequently wrathful or evil[13] Buddhist deities? In essence, the Buddhist needs to understand that their basic analysis of the human condition is flawed. Far from accomplishing its goal--the ending of suffering--Buddhism has no real solution to suffering.

To begin with, Buddha's analysis of the human condition was incomplete. His surface perception was valid, that suffering was universal. But his perception was not yet adequate. Why was the man old? Why was the man sick? Why was the beggar suffering? Why had the man died? Buddhism rejects the possibility of separation from God, human sin and a cursed world as explanations for the condition of mankind. When Buddha did seek an answer to the "whys," he concluded falsely: that personal existence itself was the cause of all suffering. Therefore the goal was to annihilate personal existence. Yet in offering so radical a solution as the destruction of individual existence, Buddha clearly went too far. Again, people don't want to be annihilated, they want to live forever, hopefully in a much better place--exactly what Christianity offers.