Does Buddhist teaching contain more wisdom than Christianity?
Buddhism focuses on how to live wisely, how to achieve mastery over oneself and to conquer fear and overcome suffering to achieve happiness. Christianity on the other hand teaches salvation. While there are some similarities between Buddhism and Christianity such as the emphasis on love, forgiveness, compassion and kindness, the former gives more practical guidance on how to achieve happiness in this life rather than focussing on the notion of salvation through belief in a Divine Being. Yet Christianity is the biggest religion in the world with 2 billion followers. Does this huge following indicate that the lure for ,many people of attaining salvation by belief in all powerful God who will grant them an eternal life of biss in heaven is more powerful than the practical wisdom of how to achieve happiness in this life?
Wow my thread above which I posted only 18 hours ago has provoked a huge response.This is a brilliant forum.
Thanks to all of you who have contributed with your pearls of wisdom!!. It seems this Buddhism versus Christianity debate in relation to wisdom is a very popular issue. I have learned so much from the exciting debate and huge variety of responses it has provoked.
Wow my thread above which I posted only 18 hours ago has provoked a huge response.This is a brilliant forum.
Thanks to all of you who have contributed with your pearls of wisdom!!. It seems this Buddhism versus Christianity debate in relation to wisdom is a very popular issue. I have learned so much from the exciting debate and huge variety of responses it has provoked.
Comments (265)
Also probably less prone to abuse -> violent fanaticism, though obviously there's always exceptions to any rule (like the "Buddhist Bin Laden" who is a raging Islamophobe).
:rofl: I remember an argument made by one atheist, I think it was Sam Harris, about how a Jain terrorist is a contradictio in terminis, an oxymoron, an impossible object as it were. According to Harris, a true Jain can't ever be a terrorist.
All I can say is if philosophy is rounded off as it were, it would become Buddhism rather than Christianity.
I suppose wisdom may be a subjective term but I didn't know what other word to use . Wisdom means different things to different people, but I suppose one could say
I suppose wisdom may be a subjective term but I didn't know what other word to use . Wisdom means different things to different people, but I suppose one could say that it essentially is about how to live well, how to achieve well being, something akin to Aristotle,s concept of Eudaimonia. That's what I mean. I think a major weakness in Christianity is that it's aim or goal is not happiness, but rather salvation. Buddhism does not believe in a supernatural God and we cannot know ultimate reality. That is for me a core wisdom in it.
I agree that Christianity like any religion that is dogmatic in it's belief in a God the saviour by its nature lends it's to fanaticism and extremism. Why is it that not more people in the world are embracing Buddhism , perhaps there would be less religious extremism if it rather than Christianity or Islam were the dominant religions. It seems to me a sign that the majority of people in the world are more interested in salvation rather than in wisdom or Eudaimonia , or how to live a good life. Despite the enormous advance of science in the past century and it's challenge to many traditionally held religious views, religion still remains hugely popular in the world, except i
only in western Europe.
I don't know if my post is relevant for a philosophy forum, perhaps for the philosophy of religion.
Again, there's always exceptions, and its not like Buddhism is perfect by any means, but in general or on average it seems way ahead here as well.
I don't think this is entirely correct. Christianity does teach the cultivation of virtues, living a righteous life, etc. :
"For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness" (Matthew 21:32).
"Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come" (Acts 24:25).
Practicing righteousness, wakefulness, watchfulness, discernment, prayer, contemplation, meditation, etc. are all part of the Christian tradition.
Unfortunately, this is no longer taught in the West, as a result of which people tend to turn to Eastern traditions instead and denigrate everything Western ....
Christianity, 1st / 5th century CE
> suffering is good (i.e. idolize a Roman execution-by-torture instrument)
> take "Christ the Messiah" as your "Lord & Savior" in order to absolve your "soul" from "sin"
> have "faith" the end of the world – "Judgment of the living and the dead" to punish the wicked and reward the righteous – is imminent ... re: [b]eschatology, theodicy
dogma[/b] – "Glory of the world to come" :pray:
*
Buddhism, 4th century BCE
> suffering (dukkha, samsara) is "cured" by mindfully ceasing to grasp at smoke (anicca)
> salvation (moksha) amounts to release from, or relinquishing of, fixating on (the illusion of) a "permanent" self/soul (anatta)
> emulate ("the middle way") but do not idolize the Buddha ("if you see him on the road (to salvation), kill him") ... re: [b]soteriology, virtues
dharma[/b] – "Be here now" :fire:
*
Both traditions teach "compassion", of course, but Buddhists have always meant and practiced it (deeds, not faith (re: Eightfold Path)) much more assiduously in the main than the followers of Christ ("faith, not deeds" (re: Nicene Creed)). I guess 'which is more wise?' may depend on what one means by wisdom. Anyway, no doubt, I've kicked a hermeneutical hornets' nest ... :death: :flower:
Christianity required a sales pitch that is the 'good news'. The actual message of Jesus if it can be extracted from the carnival of weirdness that surrounds it does offer an ideal that's worth it's weight. Which results in more wisdom on average is probably Buddhism; if nothing else it encourages reflection on a more everyday level.
Why should wisdom and socioeconomic success be seen as necessarily mutually exclusive?
Since the Reagan years? :joke:
:up:
The purpose of wisdom is to improve one's life, and that includes improving one's socio-economic status. Agree?
Is it not that case that in most traditions, wisdom privileges aestheticism?
Surely you mean asceticism.
But your thought is nice too. Heh.
Oops typo. Yes, I did mean asceticism. The former would be the spiritual wisdom of Oscar Wilde.
So neither tradition preaches "the prosperity gospel", baker; that Christians in general currently (the last few centuries of imperialist / globalist centuries out of two millennia) enjoy a higher material standard of living is due to many more historical factors than religion as well as that the followers of Christ tend not to live in a Christ-like way compared to how Buddhists tend to live, perhaps until very recently, more Buddha-like lives. In any case, "socioeconomic success" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for (seeking) wisdom.
If you offer someone two options:
Do nothing and place your hopes on a provider which will give you all you want if you’re good
Vs.
You can be your own source of good things but it’s arduous, the road is riddled with obstacles and suffering and the challenge will put you to the greatest test of your will/ ability to continue and character.
Many will prefer the passive role. Begging for a morsel instead of finding the wheat and grinding their own flour.
It also has to do with the fact that in Buddhism the analogy is that living is a superposition of both pleasure and suffering and it’s up to you to resolve yourself in this cycle because coming back is only ever going to be in this world. Whilst Christians polarise it and project expectations onto an uncertain point after death which is infinite and different from the world we live in - either all good or all bad rather than a mix.
The problem here is that you can’t live in a state of all good because goodness is meaningless without a constant reminder of its opposite.
No. You're just sourgraping.
How did it improve?? He became unfit to earn a living!
Don't forget that he and his immediate followers lived off the mercy and generosity of others, they were parasites, unwilling to meet their own needs on their own. A society could not function this way if everyone would adopt such a lifestyle.
And if a principle is such that not everyone can live by it, due to objective constraints, this means that said principle is immoral and should be abandoned.
Yeah, which is why gutters and prisons are full of enlightened people!
They both teach people to work hard, earn a lot, and support the clergy.
Neither views poverty as a virtue when it comes to laypeople.
Good point but I'm only interested in the Philosophical aspect of Buddhism not the religious part. And the philosophy in my opinion is neither chauvinistic to my knowledge and is full of practical wisdom. What do you mean it falls way short of the Greek effort to know truth with its science and political leaning. What science are you referring to. Greek and Roman Stoic philosophy has many similarities with Buddhist philosophy. They may have influenced each other as a result of Alexander the greats conquering of the Middle East and the fusion of Greek and Eastern culture in the Hellenistic period
I don't think Buddhism has one official book like the Christian Bible. It is not an organized religion like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but is like philosophy where anyone can make an argument for this or that, and if is liked, it gets passed on. Buddhism is not "God's truth" or "God's commandments".
Greek logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. That means asking the question "How do things work?" What is the "cause and the effect"? It is concerned with what we now call science and religion is not. Philosophy can help us make good moral judgments but does not help us understand our planet and how to manifest all the different parts of a city or protect endangered species.
Firstly, teaching cannot contain wisdom - either by words or by example - only constitute a way to it. What is missing is our own embodied interpretation.
Secondly, the original teachings of Christianity and Buddhism (as far as we understand them) require both words and ideal life example together (and there are also many who combine either the words of Christianity with the example of Gautama, or the words of Buddhism with the example of Jesus, or some hybridisation). As far as I can see, this combination of words and example enables certain checks and balances - and any religious or philosophical approach that prioritises one over the other, or indeed defers to or denies personal (or cultural) affect/desire, is not an effective way to wisdom. There are plenty of these wrong turns throughout the subsequent history of both.
Much of the modern teachings (words or examples) of Christianity are way off the mark as far as wisdom goes. Fundamental Christianity heavily prioritises the words but defers to individual desire; Catholicism prioritises the example, but defers to cultural affect. And from what little I’ve experienced of modern teachings of Buddhism, there seems to be a growing distinction between ascetic and intellectual Buddhism (denying affect/desire).
The way I see it, practical wisdom in either Buddhism or Christianity (as in any philosophical approach to life) strives for an interactive balance between logic, quality and energy. So you won’t notice it unless you’re looking for it.
Quoting Possibility
I'm afraid I don't understand this point. I don't know if you answered the central question in my thread which was that Christianity is focused on salvation whereas Buddhism is not. It focuses on overcoming suffering and achieving happiness in THIS world not some kind of eternal Bliss in another world, which Nietszche criticizes Christianity especially for, it's turning away from this life. Marx also attacks religion, (and I'm sure he had Christianity in mind) for it's false promises of happiness in the hereafter as a way of ignoring the suffering and plight of the oppressed in this life. In my opinion Buddhism differs , firstly it does not believe in a supernatural Being who grants eternal Bliss in the hereafter to those who worship Him .
You may have a point there but do consider "gutters" and prisons" metaphorically. :chin:
With that improved "...socioeconomic status..." to Batman...
A way of determining which is better is not about the plea of popularity but rather a determination of which religious countries profit the most, have the highest standard of living. If your wisdom doesn't mean you profit or someone else profits from its application it likely defunct.
So I have known Christians and Buddhists who were both obsessed with fool's gold. In the former, salvation in the latter, nirvana/enlightenment. Both spawned distorted, narcissistic expressions of their faith that seem obsessed with status.
However I would argue that there are many Christians who do not have a focus on salvation. This tends to be most acute in some forms of Protestantism.
I thought the central question was about wisdom, but okay.
I disagree that the central focus of Christian teaching is salvation, although I acknowledge this is nevertheless a focus common to many, if not most, Christian religions. And I also acknowledge the criticisms by Nietzsche and Marx in reference to Christianity as an institutional religion. If you’re comparing the original teachings of Buddhism to the religion of Christianity, then I’d agree with you wholeheartedly.
But Jesus never spoke of “a supernatural Being who grants eternal Bliss in the hereafter to those who worship Him”, so I think this is a misguided interpretation. Instead, he spoke of a personal relation beyond physical existence, through which he perceived and sought to understand a potential in himself that transcended his own life, and with it this apparent need to avoid suffering and death. And his life’s example explicitly did not ignore the suffering and plight of the oppressed in this life.
The teachings of Christianity are surrounded by a lot of noise. When you strip back the theological base of Judaism and all the political mess that followed, I think the original teachings are not so dissimilar from those of Buddhism - which I’m not sure is about ‘overcoming’ suffering or ‘achieving’ happiness, but more about recognising the capacity within us to manage both in this life.
Quoting Ross
I do think that Buddhism brings the possibility of an eternal source (energy) to balance the human experience of suffering and desire towards interconnectedness (logic) and enlightenment (quality). And, by the same token, I think that Christianity at its core brings the possibility of perfect relation or ‘Logos’ (logic) to balance the human experience of power (energy) and difference (quality) with a perception of potential and diversity. But that’s just my own interpretation.
What use is a philosophy when living by it makes you a loser?!
That's because they take for granted that they will be saved.
It's only the few scrupolous Roman Catholics who live in fear of messing up their one and only chance who care about salvation.
No, literally. If poverty would in and of itself be a virtue, then gutters and prisons should be full of good, morally upright, even enlightened people.
In a religious context, poverty is a virtue only to some extent for the clergy, but not for laypeople.
Ask Jesus. You're on a first name basis with him, aren't you?
Buddhism is far too versatile to make generalized claims of this sort.
For example, the Pure Land Buddhists, a major school of Buddhism, believe in salvation by a higher being.
Quoting Ross
What is that, if not salvation?
Also, the majority of practicing Buddhists (ie. those in Asian countries) probably don't focus much on nirvana, but just on getting a good rebirth.
- - -
Quoting Athena
Don't get confused by the apparent versatility and multitude in Buddhism. At the ground level, when it comes to actually interacting with actual Buddhists, it's a clearly definable religion, with clearly specified scriptures, clerical hierarchy, religious practices, etc., and sharp lines between the various Buddhist schools, and the subschools and lineages within them.
The idea of an anything-goes kind of Buddhism is a Western bastardization that has no basis in the actual Buddhist traditions.
In John 10:27–28 Jesus states that: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life;
They're the words of Jesus himself. That appears to me like God granting eternal Bliss to those who worship Him as I mentioned in my blog.
I wonder why. The text you quote does not say "worship". It says "follow", does it not?
Of course we don't really know what Jesus/Yeshua might have said, or if he was an actual person. And not even Christian scholars claim to know who wrote the gospels. Let's face, it we have some claims in a story book - just like every other religion.
And yet you’re only interested in the religious aspect of Christianity and not the philosophical part. That hardly seems a fair comparison.
Quoting Ross
No, they’re the words of a story that forms part of the original teachings. I would argue that:
Jesus is not ‘God’.
‘Follow’ is not worship.
Eternal ‘life’ is not eternal Bliss.
Your motivation here seems to be throwing dirt at Christianity, not doing philosophy. I’m not here to defend Christianity as a religion, but your argument that ‘Buddhism is better than Christianity because’ just doesn’t stand up when you compare like for like.
Christianity is a religion, whereas Buddhism is not.
Dogmatic and dharmic practices, respectively.
Buddhism = Christianity - God
The paradox: Christianity has, on its side, an omniscient being (God) but Buddhism seems vastly wiser.
[quote=Wikipedia]The term minimalism is also used to describe a trend in design and architecture, wherein the subject is reduced to its necessary elements.[/quote]
I'm not "throwing dirt at Christianity" if you read my intial thread you would see that I said that there are many similarities between Buddhism and Christianity in their emphasis on love, compassion etc. Secondly Christianity is not a philosophy unlike Buddhism. If you read a philosophy book you will often find a section on Buddhism but you won't find one on Christianity. Thirdly nowhere did I say that Christianity is better than Buddhism , if you look at my initial thread I framed my point as a QUESTION : Christianity is a more popular religion so does that mean that more people are interested in attaining salvation through faith in Christ than living wisely in THIS world, and Buddhist philosophy does not preach faith in a supernatural Being.
By the way Jesus did say the words I mentioned and he is the son of God, God is speaking to us through Jesus.
There's an error in my point above. It should read nowhere did I say Buddhism is better than Christianity
By follow he means the same thing as worship. He just uses a different word. When christians worship Christ they are FOLLOWING his teachings .
I disagree We definitely know what Jesus said. It's perfectly clear in the gospels and they are regarded by the church and Christians all over the world as the word of God. There's no ambiguity in Jesus,s teachings , eg the sermon on the mount is very clear in it's message. Scholars are not in disagreement about what it meant
My local Catholic Priest sums it up - 'The Bible is an error prone, man-made document. You need to look past it to get to the truth.'
The great American Bishop John Shelby Spong not only questioned the contents of the New Testament, he has denied the virgin birth and Jesus' miracles, not to mention his specific words. He remains an Episcopalian.
from Spong -
This point must be heard: the Gospels are first-century narrations based on first-century interpretations. Therefore they are a first-century filtering of the experience of Jesus. They have never been other than that. We must read them today not to discover the literal truth about Jesus, but rather to be led into the Jesus experience they were seeking to convey.
Unless you are a fundamentalist apologist, anyone who wants to talk about Jesus needs to surrender the inviolability of New Testament. Pick up most New Testaments - it even says in chapter prefaces that no one knows who actually wrote the gospels. How could we possibly know what Jesus actually said outside of tradition?
In that case then I don't see the point in christians worshipping Christ and trying to follow his teachings if what you say is correct that we don't know what Christ taught or even if Jesus existed. That makes Christianity untenable. The sermon on the mount expresses the essense of Christ's teaching , if that is called into question then Christianity doesn't make sense. An analogy might be that one claims to agree with the policies of a political party but rejects the fundamental arguments made by the leader of the party. That doesn't make any sense to me. One either believes in the teachings of the sermon on the mount or doesn't believe , in that case theyre not a Christian.
As the great religious scholar David Bentley Hart reminds us, the early Christians, like Paul, certainly never considered the Torah as anything more than stories.
Religions use stories and myths to get to broader truths. This is a well established tradition. It may be hard for some people who have not been exposed to wider Christian/spiritual traditions to understand.
Quoting Ross
You don't have to think they are the literal words of Jesus to think the sentiment is useful and spiritually sound.
Quoting Ross
This is unrelated but I would have thought it is very common for the foundational ideals of a party to not be followed by any of its leaders in practice.
I agree with that but doesn't this just mean that there is a minimum level of socioeconomic success. That's all your argument entails. Your argument that Christianity is wiser because of its socioeconomic success is flawed because you assume that the minimum level of socioeconomic required by any person is the same. A Buddhist monk might not need the same level of success as you or anyone living in a developed country needs more socioeconomic success that one who is not.
I don't think that you are wrong but I think that being above socioeconomic success margin is important is analogous to being satisfied with your conditions that's all.
Im not a Christian, but I was brought up a Catholic and was told that the gospels were literally the teachings of Christ. I was not brought up to believe that it was just a story or an allegory. Of course Genesis is an myth but I don't think the Catholic view is that the sermon on the mount is allegorical or just a story. It is believed to be the literal teaching of Christ, love your enemies, forgive those who hurt you etc are taken as the literal words of Jesus. If one starts to question these in my opinion one is not really a Christian , maybe they are what one calls nowadays an a la carte christian , that is they cherry pick what they want from Christ's teaching and reject what doesn't suit them. You either believe in loving your neighbour or you don't, there's no halfway .
I think that it is not about not believing in the sermon or not. Rather it is not accepting the words of Jesus at face value but asking why?
Like, if my teacher told me that I shouldn't shout at my elder then I would ask," OK but why?" It's not that I don't believe in my teacher but I don't understand the reasoning.
And my answer is no - not least because I disagree that ‘salvation through faith in Christ’ is the major drawcard of Christianity. But as Shawn mentioned so succinctly, you’re comparing apples and oranges. You have specifically avoided comparing either the religion of Buddhism with the religion of Christianity, or the philosophy at the origin of Buddhism with the philosophy at the origin of Christianity. Is it because such comparisons fail to illustrate the assumed qualitative ‘differences’ between the terms?
Buddhist religion preaches salvation through faith in the supernatural, and Christian philosophy strives for living wisely in THIS world.
Quoting Ross
That he is the ‘son of God’ or even a ‘prophet’ in the Old Testament sense is your subjective interpretation, probably gleaned from other subjective or authoritative interpretations or cultural assumptions, but is not evident, at best unclear, at the origin of Christian teachings. I disagree with your interpretation, but I think biblical hermeneutics is tangential to the discussion at hand...
Quoting Ross
...perhaps not.
Worship: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration.
Follow: to act according to the lead or example of someone.
Not the same thing. In Greek, there are even two different words (both used in the Gospels) which are both commonly translated into ‘worship’. One is a customary show of respect due to kings and other attributed authorities, the other is a feeling of reverence towards immeasurable potential.
When Christians worship Christ they are following religious customs. When they are following his teachings they reserve their reverence for a perception of immeasurable potential.
Quoting Ross
I agree that there is no point in worshipping the Christ, but we can strive to understand his teachings - even if he didn’t really exist. And there is plenty of ambiguity in interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount, to the point that it’s like a wavefunction collapse in order to form any clear directive. It’s possible to understand it in the context of Jesus’ example, but any restating of his teachings (without this example) is a limited rendering of such teachings.
If one says they believe in the words from the sermon on the mount (or a translation/interpretation thereof), that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re following the teachings of Christianity. Denying them the title ‘Christian’ has to do with the religion, not the teachings.
Quoting Ross
This explains a lot. I’m also not (technically) a Christian, but I was brought up a Catholic, and was taught that the gospels (as presented piecemeal and interpreted by a priest or religious authority) were literally the teachings of Christ. Of course, it wasn’t until I took the time to read the bible for myself that I recognised the ‘spin’ on what I was taught, and the context of each reading. And, more importantly, that the words of Jesus were only part of the teachings of Christ, and needed to be understood in the historical, cultural and political context in which they were written - incorporating my own doubt as well as faith. It’s not just about loving or not loving your neighbour, for instance, but about recognising that the value we attribute to others is no indication of their potential.
Why would one want to question Jesus,s saying to love your neighbor. you either agree with his ethical teaching or you don't. of course all the people who murder, rob, and abuse others reject Jesus,s teaching. They reject the notion of loving others. Unlike Socrates or philosophers Jesus was not debating whether or not one should love ones neighbor. He believed as millions of others in the world who agree with him, be they religious or non believers, that it is the right thing to do. Love is at the heart of Christian teaching . It's not a matter of debate. It's not a philosophical theory. without it it doesn't make sense.
I'm afraid I don't understand this point. Jesus said one should love your neighbor. I think that's fairly straightforward. What other way can one interpret that. And the historical and cultural apects have nothing to do with it. The ethics in Christian teaching are supposed to be timeless , to apply to all periods. Of course the Bible has a lot of things which are no longer acceptable example it's discrimination against gay people. But the core message about love , etc is timeless.
Quoting Ross
Read this story.
Rajesh is a 2nd grader who hates algebra. He hates algebra partly because he finds it difficult and pointless, as he is not really going to use it IRL, but mostly because of Mr. Monty, his teacher. Mr Monty is a terrible teacher and always bullies Rajesh, even when he hasn't done anything. For Mr Monty, Rajesh's existence is a problem.
He comes home everyday and cries. He complains about it to his mother everyday. Her mother is a very busy lady, from taking care of her 3 children of which Rajesh is the oldest to being the sole bread-earner of the family, her hands are tied.
One day, Rajesh decides that he had had enough and next time he will punch Mr Monty and yell that he has had enough but when he tells his mother about his resolution, she is very imperative and explicate that he should not do that. Even if he thinks that he is right in doing this, he should not. He shouldn't even make passive resistance because his teacher is an elder and every elder should be respected.
Rajesh is, of course, taken aback by his mother's disapproval of his actions, he cant understand why his mother would say such a thing but regardless, his mother is the world to him, she is like a God to Rajesh. So he doesn't question what his mother said.
2 years later, his sister Priya is now in 2nd grade and Mr Monty hasn't changed. Priya comes to Rajesh, cries and tells him that she will punch him. Rajesh scolds her and tells her that she should never do that, IT doesn't matter what she thinks, no matter what happens she shouldn't disrespect his elders. Priya complains and shouts at him saying that he is wrong and he just likes to see her suffer. Priya, against her brother's advice punches Mr Monty. This doesn't end well, her mother is called to school and she has to make time in her busy schedule which then forces her to take a loan to pay the monthly rents. At the very least, Mr Monty is punished for unfair treatment of his students but now Her mother has to work day and night and doesn't even get a day's rest. All her irritation and anger is felt by Priya when she shouts at her. Rajesh too now ostracizes her, she should have listened to him. Look, because of what se did, her mother is so angry all the time. Rajesh still doesn't understand why her mother said what she said. He still thinks whatever mother says is right. Priya, on the other hand, doesn't regret her actions. She thinks that that is what should have been done.
Later in life, Priya now has 2 children and a divorced husband. She decided to become a teacher who doesn't discriminate against his student but her salary is not enough for her family.
Rajesh is now an adult and is living a satisfactory life with his wife and two daughters and is financially safe. He now understands the workings if the world much better than as a child. He realizes that it would have been wrong to punch Mr Monty no matter how much of a scumbag he was because if he had done so then all the other teachers would have started scrutinize him and his friends would not want to be with him because if he can punch a teacher that pisses his off then no one in the class is safe. So even if he hates it, he should suck it up because otherwise things will be worse.
One day, his elder daughter, Rani, who is in 2nd grade comes to him and tells him that her english teacher bullies her and treats her unfairly and that today she shouted at him. Rajesh scolds her and tells her that if she had any problem she should have told her father and that it is wrong to disrespect elders.
THE END
The early Rajesh is like a guy who just believes Jesus with faith and starts to spread the faith while the father Rajesh is like a guy who doesn't understand why someone would believe what Jesus said for reasons other than blind faith. So he questions Jesus and then comes to understand what Jesus meant. Then he goes around spreading the faith.
Quoting Ross
Bro Bro Bro, how is this not a philosophical theory. I mean, Jesus is telling us how to live. IF that is not a philosophical question then I don't know what is.
It's not a theory it's a moral injunction
What do you think was the significance of the question ‘who is my neighbour?’ prompting the parable of the good Samaritan? Do you really think there’s only ever one way to interpret ‘neighbour’? This parable suggests that there is more to ‘love your neighbour’ than just a moral injunction. In order for this teaching to be timeless, we need to understand how one’s interpretation of the word ‘neighbour’ can be subject to cultural or ideological limitations.
1. I don't think "follow" and "worship" are the same thing. You can perfectly well follow someone without worshiping them.
2. People worship pop stars, politicians, and other "celebrities". Why not a religious leader?
Perhaps not of debate but of interpretation. How are we to "love our neighbor"?
Without a proper understanding of how to apply this in practice, it is meaningless.
Moreover, if love is so central, then it should be extended to all, Jesus (or God) included.
I don't know jack shit about Buddhism but in seeking an answer to the thread title, I would ask which one is more successful at getting it's adherents to live more wisely. If you are comfortable with your understanding of wisdom and living wisely, then there is your answer. Caveat: use of the word "more" could be problematic. I'm not so sure wisdom is a "more" or "less" thing. I think a singularity has the whole package in one and one is less than more. Maybe wisdom is like that.
My exposure to Christianity has me thinking it's a huge fail. But there may be a numbers difference and, like I said, I don't know about Buddhism. There is also my idea that spirituality is one thing and religion is a completely different thing. The latter is a drag on progress, but some folks seem to love it.
Loving kindness (metta) in Buddhism includes love for all living things. I think what's missing from Christianity is that it doesn't emphasize loving all living creatures as in Buddhism.
I get that. But my question was how does a Christian love his or her neighbor in practice?
What do you do? Do you send them thoughts of love? Hugs and kisses? A large check?
What is it that constitutes Christian love?
The New Testament doesn't seem especially unclear on this. Are you saying it is hard to understand what Jesus recommends? If you are saying it is difficult to ascertain what we should do here, then maybe we should give up all reading of philosophers/religion for lack of clarity?
:pray: The Church of JC CAPITALI$T :halo:
"Join now!" :smirk:
My question was addressed to @Ross.
He/she seems to have their own definition of "worship" and "follow". How can we have a discussion without a definition of terms?
Doesn't Christ make it clear what one should do to show love. Now I'm not a Christian and I'm not very knowledgeable about the content of the gospels, except what I remember from going to mass as a youngster and reading about the philosophy of religion. I did a philosophy degree in college and that covers a bit about religion.
To get back to your question. Didn't Jesus say what a Christian should do to show love, to visit the sick, to help the needy, to be patient, kind and helpful, to forgive those who hurt you. It's encapsulatef in the first Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians:
Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury[/b]
Well, that sounds more like what Christian love is not, than what it is.
And would you say that this love applies to Jesus/God too, or just to our neighbor?
Ok to clarify the issue:,-
Following Jesus means a radical abandonment of the pursuit of things like money, possessions, addictions, and sin. Following Jesus means you’re pursuing Him by reading the Bible, obeying it, praying, and growing as a new believer.
The above is what I read in a religious magazine.
Now to me the last part they say about praying to God and obeying the Bible seems to me to involve the act of worshipping Christ
So, this is the meaning of "following" Jesus/God. But is there anything known about "loving" him?
This would be a topic in which much could be said if it were possible to measure wisdom. I don't know how that could be possible.
Buddhism has many interpretations as does Christianity. We may speak of dominant trends in one or the other, but if one includes sub-schools and the like, it's practically infinite. So I don't see how to proceed here.
:up:
Not all Buddhist schools emphasise ‘loving’ in an interactive way. That’s the ‘out’ for Buddhism - that general inaction, ignorance, intellectualising or asceticism are acceptable ways to deal with the overwhelming task of loving indiscriminately. Buddhism doesn’t view love as a feeling, but as a logical interconnectedness. So the less you interact with the world, the less of this interconnectedness you need to manage. It’s much easier to ‘love’ the world in this way when you’re not an active participant.
Christian religion’s emphasis on love as an energy source or feeling renders discrimination or selective ignorance, inaction and asceticism as acceptable ways to deal with the overwhelming task of loving ‘unconditionally’, with intensity of feeling. If we interpret our ‘neighbour’ as someone most like us, then it’s easier to ‘love’ them actively and intensely, no matter what they do.
Of course, there is also general asceticism in Christianity, and selective ignorance in Buddhism.
This is an interpretation that equivocates ‘Jesus’ with ‘God’, and the Bible with ‘His word’. The ambiguity of ‘pursuing Him’, ‘obeying’ the Bible and ‘growing as a believer’ enables another authority to then dictate what all this means. This is why your personal interpretation of ‘praying’ and ‘obeying’ seems to be worshipping - it’s what you’ve been taught. But that’s not really what worshipping is.
To follow the teachings of Jesus is to strive to understand what he meant by what others claim he said in relation to how he lived as a human example, and then to act in accordance with that understanding. When we rely on other authorities to tell us what he meant or how to act, then we’re not following Jesus, we’re following another authority...
Worship refers to maximal value, and is either recognised in or attributed to a relation. The question then becomes: are you praying because you’ve been told this act has value/potential, or because you recognise maximal value in the relationship behind it? And is that relationship with God or with the authority that told you to pray? Are you obeying the Bible (as interpreted by yourself or some authority) or obeying God? Do you understand the authority with which you’re aligning your actions?
All of these questions are addressed in the teachings of Jesus, but most are obscured by the teachings of the church - especially the Catholic Church, which assumes its own authority. Read and think for yourself.
Correct. However, I think that the equivocation is understandable in light of the fact that in the Bible Jesus is referred to as "the Son of God" and as conceived by God's agency (Holy Spirit).
And if the Bible is not the word of Jesus/God, how can we know what Jesus/God taught?
Jesus didn't write anything therefore we have to RELY ON OTHER PEOPLE namely the writers of the gospels who passed his teaching to posterity. Just like Socrates who didn't write anything its from Plato that we are getting the formers philosophy. But I don't think many christians have a problem with that. Jesus appointed his disciples who then wrote down his teachings. An analogy might be a spokesperson for an organization , we generally accept that that person is passing on the truthful information that management gave out because they were appointed by management.
I wonder is it really true that the Catholic church are obscuring Christ's teaching. That's a huge sweeping statement. I hardly think that hundreds of millions of practicing Catholics in the world are all that naive that none of them have ever questioned whether their church is true to the teachings of Christ. There's been a lot of religious scholarship going on for over a hundred years examining these very issues by Catholic scholars. I'm not very knowledgeable about this field but if what you say is correct then Catholics are not true Christians at all if they're not being true to Jesus s teaching.
There’s an argument to be made that any claim of divine descendency attributed to Jesus’ role in the Bible is a misinterpretation. It would never have been possible to prove that this relationship of ‘son’ to ‘father’ ever had a materiality - even with all the technology we have now. All we have are the words of writers who couldn’t possibly have known, trying to piece a story together that made sense to them. This renders any father-son relationship here a construction of perceived significance, value or potentiality. That’s different from false. Anyone who’s been raised by someone with no genetic link will understand this. Jesus calling God ‘Father’, others corroborating this relationship, and even Jesus calling himself ‘God’s son’ - none of this means he is actually the son of God.
Quoting Apollodorus
We can’t know. We can only infer. We’re supposed to use reasoning to assess the validity of statements made throughout the Bible, and to question those that make supernatural or illogical claims. But it isn’t about dismissing these claims so much as understanding the human experiences behind them. Fear and desire in circumstances of ignorance, isolation or exclusion obscures understanding.
Scholars will argue that it wasn’t disciples of Jesus who wrote down his teachings, but later generations of followers - and that the four selected Gospels were drawn piecemeal from several earlier sources. There’s no way to even know if Jesus (or Socrates, for that matter) was a real person.
But is that even relevant? The question is not whether the words or the man can be trusted, but whether these teachings lead us to wisdom. That’s the whole point of obscuring the source. Socrates, too, never told us precisely what to think or how to act - he himself claimed to know nothing, and was convicted of corrupting the city’s youth. The authority/wisdom is not in the words or the speaker - it’s in the wisdom and perceived potential we find in ourselves by striving to understand and follow the right teachings.
Quoting Ross
I don’t believe all the obscurity is intentional. Most of it has been a case of fear and desire leading church authorities away from wisdom. They’re humans, and there’s been so much political intrigue in Christianity and particularly the Catholic Church since the inception of both. The entire structure of the Catholic Church has been designed to reduce the schisms of the past, and to maximise automatic trust and compliance in the clergy as a hierarchy of authority (above the Bible). We were taught to believe that by obeying our Catholic parents, teachers and clergy, who taught us how to think and what to do, we were obeying God. Suffice to say, this needs a rethink, and I haven’t entirely written them off yet, but it’s a big ask...
So, yes - I would say that most are probably that naive. Or they’ve questioned and then relied on answers from within this church structure, instead of using their own capacity for reasoning. It’s what has made the structure so effective so far.
Incidentally, I don’t think there is any clear way to define a ‘true Christian’. It’s just not a useful category anymore. I think the same goes for a ‘true Buddhist’.
Christianity succeeded Buddhism. Is the conspicuous exclusion of animals in Christianity an improvement in or a deterioration of moral standards in re Buddhism? I ask not because I believe animals shouldn't be included in ethics but simply because it is a question that can be asked.
You cannot compare two different religions, their teachings, their principles, etc. and "weigh" the results to establish which of them contains more wisdom!
And then, wisdom for whom? A Buddhist, a Christan or a non-adherent to either of them? I suspect you mean the latter. But then you should indicate that, to increase the viability of your question.
Anyway, it is almost the same with asking, "Does Plato's teachings contain more wisdom than Aristotle's?" Has such a question any meaning at all?
Correct. But "Father" can have more than one meaning, especially in theology. This had already been a form of address for the deity as applied, for example, to Zeus in the Greek tradition. As the father or “pater familias” was the ruler of the house, God was the ruler of the cosmos. Basically, the term implies authority and the respect and obedience due to that authority.
As regards the attitude of Christian believers to God, it is interesting to note that Jesus himself gives his disciples two commandments, (1) to love God, and (2) to love your neighbor.
However, though Jesus expressly describes commandment (1) as the “first and great commandment”, there seems to be a modern tendency to treat this as an inconvenient (and to some, embarrassing) relic to be ignored together with the concept of soul.
I may be wrong, but one gets the impression that there is a general effort in modern theological discourse to dissociate Christianity from traditional core concepts such as God and soul, and to replace it with a humanitarian-political movement concerned exclusively with “feeding the poor”, “sheltering refugees”, and “smashing capitalism” ....
Do you mind me asking but What kind of church did you belong to because I'm from Ireland which when I was a child in the 60's was a very conservative Catholic country, but I don't remember my parents commanding me to obey them even though they were practicing Catholics. I was given full freedom to think for myself by them and my teachers. Of course 90% of people at that time attended mass. Religion was everywhere. But I think the Irish, although it was a conservative Catholic country, are by their nature quite a liberal minded, freedom loving , irreverent and progressive people's and just ignored the Church,s pronouncements or attempts to control our minds and hearts. I remember the wild parties full of casual sex and almost orgies, even back in the 70,s in so called Catholic Ireland. One Irish Professer on tv said "we Irish were straight-laced by day and hedonistic by day"
That should be hedonistic by Night
The difference is in the term ‘Abba’. But this implication of entitled authority is brought into question from the get-go. Joseph is technically Jesus’ father, and by cultural rights has authority over him - except that he doesn’t. Our understanding of the paternal role has developed over millennia, just as our understanding of leadership has developed. The leader of a dominion assumes stewardship of its inhabitants and a pastoral responsibility, not control or unquestioning authority, as was once assumed. This development is apparent across the historical progress of biblical writings.
Quoting Apollodorus
I think perhaps the embarrassment is in clinging to ‘traditional’ interpretations of these core concepts, in ignorance of logic. Recognising the logical impossibility of certain properties traditionally attributed to core concepts such as ‘God’ and ‘soul’ inspires fear and doubt. But we cannot argue our way out of this: to ‘love God’ is to intentionally increase awareness of, connection to and collaboration with, experience outside of logical possibility.
The passage from Matthew is taken from Deuteronomy 6.5. It follows the passage known in Judaism as the "Shema", from the first word of 6.4, meaning hear:
It goes on to say:
Matthew poses the problem: if the Messiah is the son of David then, citing Psalm 110:
how can David call him lord if he is his son?
This is fraught with problems. The term 'lord' is being used to translate two different terms, first Yahweh and second Adonai. Both terms are used as names for God, but Adonai is also used to mean a king. Why was no one able to make the distinction and why did no one dare to ask him more questions? Perhaps it has something to do with the difference between the claim of being the son of David and the son of God. Perhaps this has something to do with God being one. Perhaps their not daring to ask more questions is meant to indicate that we should not dare ask more questions.
There is another issue here. In what way is one to love God? The answer is given in what is here referred to as the second commandment:
It is in the second being like the first that he answers the question of how God is to be loved, that is, by loving your neighbor. This raises the question, again going back to Deuteronomy: "Is your enemy your neighbor?" As we see, Christians are no less likely to distinguish between "us and them" than anyone else.
The ideal catholic community is one in which there is an acceptance that pretty much ‘everyone does this’. So you wouldn’t even consider not wanting to attend mass every Sunday, make your first communion, or recite the Nicene Creed, when all your friends are doing it anyway. There is no need to command obedience to God when this obedience is considered ‘normal’ behaviour. So I don’t doubt you had full freedom to think for yourself within an Irish Catholic context.
I grew up in a suburban Catholic school community in Australia (in the 80s). By the time we stopped listening to our parents, the teachers had us believing that all our religious practices at least were ‘normal’. That started to change once I left school, of course. Thinking for yourself within a religious context isn’t quite the same as thinking for yourself without these constraints, but it’s easiest to restructure it as ‘self’ once you’re free of the original context, at least initially.
But this isn’t following Jesus’ teachings - it’s following everyone else.
What do you mean by normal in this sense. In primary school were marched down to the church on a regular basis but I went to a non denominational secondary school where God was hardly mentioned. My Dad was very religious but my mother although she had faith had a much more liberal take of Catholicism. There was a fierce backlash against the Catholic church in Ireland from about the late 80,s and especially 90,s mainly because of the clerical sexual abuse scandals. The Irish had felt so oppressed by a traditionally authoritarian church that the reaction against it by a new generation was huge and now we have the first openly homosexual prime minister in our history which would have been unthinkable a generation ago.
"Metta" isn't 'love', and "loving-kindness" is an awkward translation.
From Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Metta Means Goodwill:
/.../
[i]Metta is a wish for happiness — true happiness — and the Buddha says to develop this wish for ourselves and everyone else: "With metta for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless heart." (Snp 1.8) But what's the emotional quality that goes along with that wish? Many people define it as "lovingkindness," implying a desire to be there for other people: to cherish them, to provide them with intimacy, nurture, and protection. The idea of feeling love for everyone sounds very noble and emotionally satisfying. But when you really stop to think about all the beings in the cosmos, there are a lot of them who — like the snake — would react to your lovingkindness with suspicion and fear. Rather than wanting your love, they would rather be left alone. Others might try to take unfair advantage of your lovingkindness, reading it as a sign either of your weakness or of your endorsement of whatever they want to do. In none of these cases would your lovingkindness lead to anyone's true happiness. When this is the case, you're left wondering if the Buddha's instructions on universal metta are really realistic or wise.
/.../
metta is not necessarily an attitude of lovingkindness. It's more an attitude of goodwill — wishing the other person well, but realizing that true happiness is something that each of us ultimately will have to find for him or herself, and sometimes most easily when we go our separate ways.
This understanding of metta is borne out in the Pali Canon, first of all in the word itself. The Pali language has another word for love — pema — whereas metta is related to the word mitta, or friend. Universal metta is friendliness for all.
/.../[/i]
Please see the rest of the essay for canonical references.
I think it's more a question of political authorities using and abusing religion for their own ends rather than the fault of the Church itself. A classic case in my country is Northern Ireland during the conflict there in the 70,s and 80,s where people were murdered simply because they were a Catholic or Protestant. It had nothing to do with religion, the motives were political. If you think of Renaissance painters in the 15th century in Italy like Michelangelo who painted and sculpted make and female nudes for exhibition in public places and was commissioned by the Catholic church to do so. And Leonardo da Vinci was openly homosexual as far back as THE 15th century. and it had no impact on his celebrity status. I think something has happened since that time when things became more conservative or repressive , 19th century Victorian society in Britain and Ireland was notoriously repressive where women had to cover themselves up completely , reminds me of the fundamentalist Islamic codes on women's dress nowadays . I think it's more about politics and social attitudes than religion which is used by people for their agendas. Jesus treated women as equals 2000 years ago when it was almost unheard of at that time. He was in my opinion a counter cultural figure.
You misread my tone.
Have you read Döblin's Berlin Alexanderplatz?
It could very well be that being a liberal humanist, one expects too much from life, and from mankind, and that, like Franz Bieberkopf should have done, one should set one's hopes on no more than bread with butter.
I would very much like to believe that there is a wisdom that is beyond and above socioeconomic success, a wisdom that is worth more than socioeconomic success, a wisdom that trumps socioeconomic success. But I am afraid, sincerely afraid, that there is no such wisdom, and that socioeconomic success is as good as life gets.
You may be right. As Kafka wrote: "There is an infinite amount of hope in the universe ... but not for us." Still, the teachings of e.g. the Buddha, Laozi, Epicurus-Lucretius, Seneca-Epictetus, ... Spinoza ... Zapffe-Camus, Buber ... Gandhi-King ... Nussbaum-Sen ... are wise insofar as they provide reminders for unlearning habits (vices) by which we tend to make ourselves, and therefore others, more miserable than less. This 'unlearning misery' is completely in one's control whereas "socioeconomic success" is always dependent on – at the mercy of the volatile cycles of – (rigged!) market forces and exogenous events (e.g. pandemic effects on local, regional, even national economies).
No matter that material well being for a relative few is "as good as life gets" – I'm anarchic (a catastrophist-entropologist-agonist) and not utopian by any means – wisdom, as philosophy manifests, is aspirational, a horizon approached but never reached; as Buddhists say "Be here now ... The path is the goal, the journey is the destination." Wise. In contrast to "You shall receive your reward in the hereafter", blah blah blah, etc. Christianity had from its beginning completely misconstrued (corrupted) the simple, though not easy, teaching
[quote=Hillel the Elder, standing on one foot]Whatever you find hateful (harmful), do not do to anyone. That is the meaning of the Torah, all the rest is commentary. Go study it.[/quote]
Compared to (early) Buddhist practices, Christianity has always been a mug's game.
I am a Christian of some sort.
Your challenge is worthy of a response.
But I make a poor champion for others. especially if we disagree about what has changed.
Pali metta is the equivalent of Sanskrit maitri which seems to be more like friendliness, goodwill, or benevolence, the opposite being ill-will.
In the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali, maitri is supposed to be practiced together with other attitudes like compassion (karuna), happiness (mudita), and indifference (upeksanam).
It is debatable how to best apply this in practice, though. For example, when coming across a tiger in the forest. I think the idea is that when practiced properly, the object of your metta, in this case the tiger, will be moved to respond in kind and be nice to you instead of having you for breakfast or lunch. But I don't know how many Buddhists have developed their metta to the degree that it would work out as intended.
On the other hand, if the ultimate objective of metta is to eradicate selfishness, then perhaps offering yourself as food to the tiger may be the quickest way to achieve it.
In the Jataka Stories, the Buddha in a previous life met a starving tigress that was about to eat her own cubs, and offered himself to her as food out of metta and karuna (?rya??ra's J?takam?l?, Vy?ghr?-j?taka).
This would seem to have thoroughly eradicated his selfishness as he later attained nirvana. So, there may be some truth in it ....
Interesting, Baker. I am afraid that wisdom may be as good as life gets... I prefer your fear as it is more straight forward and it would mean I can stop trying to understand Being and Time...
Not worth questioning, I suppose.
Quoting Ross
I don’t think you can separate politics from religion, especially when it comes to Catholicism, which has a clear hierarchical structure of authority. The Church is far from faultless, even in the case of Northern Ireland. The idea that religion is ‘used and abused’ or a tool to be wielded is the same argument the gun lobby employs. But religion is not a tool you can reserve only for those licensed to use responsibly. It’s a capacity that anyone can access for any reason: to inspire attention and effort towards that vague awareness of ‘something’ beyond our understanding, and give it form. There’s no such thing as an ‘accident’ in using religion.
But religion is different from teachings, and actually has nothing to do with wisdom. This is the main point I want to get across.
I disagree I think religion is used frequently for the purposes of all kinds of injustice. I lived through the troubles in Ireland so I know what it was like. The famous slogan of the Unionists in Northern Ireland is we don't want Rome Rule . By that they meant being ruled by a Dublin government which was a Catholic country would mean Catholic domination of the whole island and the protestant unionists would then be a minority. So you see how they used religion for their political ends. It was a few priests in northern Ireland who were important in developing the peace process. The Church during the conflict preached non violence and did not take sides.
I wonder to what extent is it powerful conservative elements in society who are using the Church for their own agenda or is it the other way around that the Church is the cause of these elements. I think it's a chicken-and-egg situation. It's not that straightforward . In the middle ages the Church made war and actually organized massacres of heretics, protestants etc. Nowadays the Church,s role is very different, in a world of ethnic conflict, terrorism and violence, the Church preaches non violence, peace, help for the needy and so on. I think where it was greatly at fault nowadays was it's recent covering up of child sex abuse rather than handing over the perpetrators to justice. That did more damage to the church than anything else in it's history and it will never recover it's moral authority or trust in Ireland that it once had.
I think the Buddhists meant only human beings in relation to Metta. In my opinion modern psychology proves the validity of the Buddhist teachings about Metta, compassion, kindness and so on. It's been shown empirically that these values when practiced lead to greater happiness. The human brain over the course of evolution developed the capacity for empathy, compassion in response to the survival needs, and this led to greater cooperation and ultimately the building of more stable and larger communities and fast forward to the development of advanced civilizations. So in my opinion Buddhist philosophy not only contains the value of thousands of years of accumulated wisdom drawn from observing REAL people in REAL life situations but it makes practical sense for someone in pursuit of happiness.
Correct. However, the concept of ethical conduct as conducive to happiness both in the individual and in society, was already central to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and subsequently passed into the Christian tradition along with other elements of Hellenistic philosophy.
So, it does not seem to be exclusively a feature of Buddhism.
I want to make a correction to my point here, although Metta is meant to apply to all living things that obviously is not going to impact the behavior of Tiger you mentioned in your example. But the value of the Buddhist teaching here lies in the fact that it changes our attitude towards the whole of creation. Something I think is a very valuable life lesson for us TODAY in the plundering of the planets finite resources. Christianity does not have, to my knowledge, the same attitude of respect or Metta towards the natural environment. In the Bible it says Man has dominion over creation. Man is seen as superior to the animals. It's also due to the Newtownian view of the mechanical universe. That arrogance and flawed thinking is possibly what led us to the plundering of our planet, viewing it as a material object to exploit for our pleasure and to climate crisis of today. I think many people are realize that this attitude is not wise and the ecological and environmental movement is growing.
You are probably right there.
But I wouldn't blame Christianity for the destruction of the environment. People have always cut down forests to grow crops, build houses and ships, for fuel, etc. Large-scale deforestation, etc. only came with the growth of populations. The rest was the work of industrialization and commercialization of society. I don't see this as being connected with any particular philosophical or religious system.
That's a good point and I've often pondered that myself. Having studied WESTERN philosophy in college for a few years I was intially impressed by the likes of Socrates and other WESTERN figures for a long time until I discovered EASTERN philosophy and I found a whole new tradition of wisdom there I had been largely ignorant of. There's a book Id recommend which examines both Western and Eastern philosophy . It's called How the World thinks by Julian Baggini. It's a bestseller I think. He's one of the few western philosophers whose very interested and knowledgeable about Eastern philosophy. Now some western thought such as Stoicism has similarities with Buddhism and you're correct that there was an intermingling of the traditions during the Hellenistic period. But unfortunately with the coming of Christianity all that ancient wisdom came to an end as Ancient Philosophical schools were closed by the Church in the 5th century AD. What survived of western philosophy was a Christianized Aristotle and Plato. Not until the 18th century did you get a revival of much ancient wisdom and then western colonial attitudes coupled with ignorance of Eastern thought continued until the 19th or even 20th centuries. It's all there explained much better than I can in Baginnis book.
Actually it is. If you take the Celts which Im a bit familiar with being Irish or a Celt myself! They regarded the natural environment as sacred , they had a respect for nature, not seeing it as a worthless object to be used for exploitation. Of course they cut down trees, but they still had reverence for and respect and a sense of awe for creation and the natural world. Nowadays there's nothing of that attitude left. From my personal experience I was never brought up with that idea but a friend of mine who is in the Green party hugs trees and campaigns to protect the environment. Actually he and other like minded people influenced my views here. Then when I discovered Buddhism, Daoism and read Anam Cara by John o Donohue, an Irish expert on Celtic spirituality, who ironically was a former Catholic priest, it opened my eyes and I realized that I had been brought up with a closed mindset. Also when I met and befriended chinese nationals I realized that my mindset was a Eurocentric one and I found philosophy was a means to expand my mindset.
I think this is a (West European) misconception. Plato’s Academy at Athens was closed in 529 AD because it was a Pagan school, but Classical philosophy continued to be taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria and at the University of Constantinople from 425 AD to 1453 AD (when the city fell to the Turks) and after that at Greek philosophy schools like Phanar College in Constantinople.
Plato's works were freely available from libraries and schools run by the Church or monasteries throughout the Greek-speaking world and as far as Armenia.
What the Church prohibited was not philosophy itself but the teaching of it as a non-Christian tradition (or as an alternative to Christianity). Philosophy in Greece has been taught without interruption from Plato and Aristotle down to the present!
It was the Christian State (Eastern Roman Empire a.k.a. Byzantine Empire) that preserved all the original manuscripts of Plato, Aristotle, the poets, etc. And it was Christian scholars who translated all that into Persian, Syriac, and Arabic. Arab rulers then translated some of it into Latin and this is how it reached Western Europe. In the Eastern part of the Roman Empire it was never lost and it was brought from there by Greek philosophy teachers to Italy where it played a central role in the Renaissance movement.
But I agree that there are some interesting parallels between Ancient Greek and Indian philosophical traditions. The Shape of Ancient Thought by Thomas McEvilley (recommended to me by Wayfarer) is an excellent study of this subject.
What is the connection between wisdom and socioeconomic success? Is someone wise to be born into inherited wealth? Is someone unwise if because of circumstances beyond their control they are no longer socioeconomically successful? Perhaps wisdom has more to do with how one lives whether one is socioeconomically successful or not.
How does one measure the worth of wisdom? Perhaps it is the other way around, that wisdom is the measure of worth.
Yes I was aware that ancient philosophy survived in the Eastern Roman empire. However all over Europe Christianity triumphed, and although some ancient survived it had to fit in with Christian dogma , otherwise it was rejected, so as far as I know and (one of us can check that out on Google ! ) Stoicism, Epicureanism, and many other ancient schools of philosophy which ran counter to Christian dogma were rejected as "pagan" philosophy. The reason why Plato and Aristotles thought was acceptable to the church is because it (parts of it to be precise ) was found to be compatible with Christian dogma. My point as I made previously, is that only during the 18th century Enlightenment and beyond when Church control of learning disappeared that much of ancient philosophy, such as Epicureanism, which was an atheistic , materialistic philosophy revived. And in fact this paved the way for the birth of modern science. The Renaissance you mentioned was not a period of much radical thought, it was mainly very creative in art and architecture, not philosophical thought , which had to wait until the Enlightenment.
Well, if atheism and materialism are your main concern, then it's a different story.
I think what tends to happen when someone converts to a new religion, is that they often start denigrating and even hating their old one.
However, if we think about it, Celtic religion no longer exists and we cannot realistically reconstruct it.
Also, from what is known about it, Celtic society was controlled by priests and kings, it involved human sacrifice, there were constant wars between different tribes, etc.
If you read the story of Cuchulainn, for example, it makes highly interesting reading but it doesn't sound like the ideal world you would like to live in. So, I think there is a danger of oversimplifying and over-romanticizing ancient cultures.
We must also bear in mind that Christianity in the British Isles was introduced peacefully, not by force. The natives converted of their own accord because they saw something of value in the new religion.
Similarly, in the Roman Empire, Romans were impressed by the exemplary ethical conduct of Christians, their faith, etc. Additionally, there already was a trend towards monotheism in Roman religion, especially among the educated classes, whereas popular religion had become a bit of a joke with superstitions and gods and goddesses for everything under the sun ....
References:
1. Buddhism & Christianity
2. Barlaam and Josaphat/Bilawhar and Budhasaf
[quote=Wikipedia]“Ask and it shall be given, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.”
Gasan remarked: “That is excellent. Whoever said that is not far from Buddhahood [is a bodhisattva].”[/quote]
That buddhism can accommodate Jesus and likewise if there's a place for the Buddha in christianity, are these two religions really that different in terms of...wisdom?
I remember being in a newcomer meeting at a Buddhist center years ago and a Latin dude with very weak English, and apparently a Christian background, struggling to ask how the soul fits into the Budhdist scheme of things. He asked as though it were a given and he just didn't yet know how it fit in. None of the teachers would touch the question, the big weenies. Finally another newcomer tried to explain no-self. She was a university student and quite knoledgeable about Buddhist philosophy. Unfortunatly the more she explained the deeper the puzzeled expression grew on the poor fellows face.
Christian: "For Heaven's sake, save your soul from Hell!" (Suffer as Christ suffered.)
Buddhist: "Reduce suffering here and now." (What soul?)
One element worthy of mention is Thomas Aquinas, deeply engaging with Aristotle in the 13nth Century when the texts became available on the Latin side of the Church. The Enlightenment you prefer has much to thank this engagement as a point of departure.
Before that time, the only references to Plato were confined to passages from the Timaeus. In the 4th Century, Augustine was familiar with a number of Neoplatonists but his references to Plato in the City of God are almost entirely confined to the text of the Timaeus.
That is a long time between trains.
I would say that's a good outcome for both the interlocutors, buddhist and christian. It's the WTF? moment every buddhist aspires to and wishes to elicit from would-be converts though it is a fact that buddhist sanghas lack an evangelical wing.
The basic metaphysical picture at the heart of Christianity (and Islam and Judaism) is one that can be arrived at by rational reflection and enjoys epistemic justification. By contrast, nothing similar can be said for Buddhism. Take, for instance, the Karmic view of how the universe operates (a view I take to be central to Buddhism). What evidence is there for it? What good argument implies it? None that I know of (happy to be provided with one - but to date, no Buddhist I have spoken to has been able to furnish me with one). No wonder Buddhists encourage their followers to sit around and think nothing - rational reflection destroys such views. Buddhism is for the intellectually touched and psychologically weak, methinks. And Buddhists appeal not to epistemic reasons, but instrumental ones (believe this and you'll be happy, etc.).
I'm not sure but it appears, from my personal experiences and those of others, that morality and hedonism don't always go hand in hand as some/most of us believe. Sometimes, to be good, one must suffer is what I mean.
I have no clue as to why that is. All I can say is goodness, on occasion, involves a whole lot of pain. :cry:
When you say "Buddhism" "Christianity" "Wisdom", I have to ask, what do you mean?
Are you thinking of an all inclusive Buddhism? Are the Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana schools all the same? Are the four Tibetan Buddhist lineages all the same? Is Zen Buddhism the same as the above? (no, it's not).
When you say "Christianity," do you mean the exoteric, Roman orthodoxy or proto-orthodoxy? Are you thinking of the Old Testament, the New Testament or both? By "Christian," are apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings included? What about esoteric Christianity and mysticism like the writings of Eckhart Tolle, Reinhold Niebuhr, Thomas Kempis and Valentin Tomberg? What about early Christian writings that are collectively found in the works of heresiologists like Irenaeus, Athanasius, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Epiphanius? What about the early Christians they railed against; the Gnostics, their books and the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scriptures in 1945?
When you say "wisdom," do you mean experiential or learned? Is one obtainable without the other? Does one lead to the other? Can one lead to the other? What is the goal of Christianity? What is the goal of Buddhism? Are they "salvation" and "enlightenment" respectively or is there more to the story?
So I have to answer your question yes and no.
Many of the enlightened folk love to revel in their self-perceived superiority, it is true. :vomit:
It's not about superiority/inferiority...there are, let's just say, more pressing matters like suffering & death. Have I missed anything?
I probably misunderstood you then. I thought you meant to say that christianity is about suffering in the here and now (like Jesus) and buddhism is about liberation of suffering, again, in the here and now (like the Buddha).
I couldn't square that with what both religions are about - morality - since morality and hedonism (suffering) have quite a complex relationship that doesn't seem to lend itself to simple linear correlation between the two - sometimes, being good means to bear pain. A bummer but that's just the way it is.
Truth be told, you're absolutely right! Both christianity and buddhism are, first and foremost, about suffering and how one might liberate oneself from it - by being moral humans. Do good and the pearly gates await you; do bad and off to the fiery pits of hell. Morality is only a/the way by which one can escape the cluthces of Algea (pain).
I never realized this, thanks.
Quoting 180 Proof
True, each religion has its own unique emphasis but I have a feeling the doctrine of impermanence has its own eschatological point to make.
:up:
I think it's possible to just use the terms Buddhism and the term Christianity without going into specifics about which type of Christianity etc. I have seen discussions on this topic which just use those terms. Although there are many different forms in each religion , they are 2 different traditions, each with a different set of core principles. One of the core principles in all types of Christianity is salvation through faith in Christ. Whereas
Buddhism has no such tenet in any of it's forms. It focuses on achieving happiness, wisdom, whatever you like to make of those terms in THIS life whereas Christianitys core tenet is salvation , achieving eternal Bliss in the Afterlife. And my point was since there are much more christians in the world today than Buddhists does that mean that salvation and eternal Bliss in heaven is more popular than striving for wisdom in this world which firstly means accepting reality AS IT IS which is a core tenet of Buddhism. I think Nietszche gives one of the most famous critiques of Christianity as a turning away or denial of this life. And the more I study Nietszche the more convinced I am of his argument.
As far as I'm aware it's Christianity that teaches about the entering the kingdom of heaven and fires of hell for those who haven't repented, that's not a teaching of Buddhism. Buddhism says that whatever you do comes back to you. So that if you do good, you will be rewarded in some way and if you are bad it will have negative consequences for you. For me I interpret this from a psychological perspective, not metaphysical. The Buddhists are right that you will feel happier when you do good, eg help someone, and you'll feel bad if you deliberately harm people. I think that's what they mean, it's nothing to do with a God who punishes you
Is it me or are you making a distinction without a difference? As far as I can tell, the notions of heaven & hell are just another way of saying what goes around comes around, you reap what you sow, aka karma. You couldn't possibly have missed that!
Quoting Ross
I never said anything about God. My focus has been the obvious similarity between how both christianity and buddhism adopt the carrot-and-stick approach to morality vis-à-vis hedonism (pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of suffering). Do good, the rewards will be great; commit evil deeds, the repercussions will be severe.
Psychological perspective? That reduces buddhism to a pernicious mind game, a sort of self-delusion, something the buddha and his long line of erudite disciples would be dead against. Buddhism is more than that. It's not just about making yourself feel better about yourself; it's a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering.
Christ's message to the world was one of mercy and compassion - different, but not all that different, from Buddha's message to the world.
I am not religious, by the way.
How can we know what the teaching of Jesus are and what are the teachings attributed to him? While I think we can identify the influence of Paul and John, it is questionable that what is left are the teachings of Jesus rather than of those who were inspired by and may or may not have understood him. Those who may or may not have addressed their own concerns rather than his. Those who could not accept the failure to fulfill the promise and created their own mythologies, blending them with beliefs of death and resurrection. Those who saw the promise of the Messiah through pagan eyes, who deified a man.
There is much debate over this, and entire studies devoted to this question. Because we may never know for sure, it is up to each to look at the evidence and arguments and decide what they believe.
If you're interested in this subject, here are a few (non-religious) lectures which I found very interesting:
Yes but Christianity doesn't mean heaven and hell in a symbolic sense as representing good or bad outcomes, the problem (for me) is that it literally believes in the existence of a heaven of eternal Bliss and hell of eternal damnation. These are ways to instill fear in people to make them "behave themselves" and so become instruments of control by the powers that be. Marx said that religion promises happiness in another world to make injustice and oppression in this world acceptable, to switch the focus away from happiness in THIS world and place it in ANOTHER world. Buddhism on the other hand teaches nothing of the sort. It doesn't believe in a supernatural Being for a start and it's focus is on achieving happiness in this world. They may have religious beliefs such as being reborn again , but it's philosophy can and often is taken separately by many people without the religious component. You should watch The Buddhist quotes on YouTube on wonder zone channel , a fountain of wisdom.
The problem of evidence is that there is no evidence. We do not know what Jesus taught. We can date the gospels and note significant differences, but we cannot determine how any of them relate to whatever it is that Jesus might have taught. The stories take on a life of their own. In addition, the canonical gospels are only a part of what was written.
This cannot be right because religions tend to constrain moral development. Shared values/norms means no independent values/norms. Everything depends on group dependence. It’s not primary about morality, salvation, or a reduction in suffering. All that can be better achieved without religion. At core it’s simply about tribal solidarity.
Now you've put your finger on it "a long line of erudite disciples". Why then do you view Buddhism negatively as taking a carot and stick approach. I agree Buddhism is a serious attempt to solve a real-world problem, that of suffering. And that's why I believe it contains wisdom which if practiced in ones life seems to me to be in line with modern psychologists description of a happy life. By the way what's wrong with feeling better about yourself. That's the consequence of happiness. People normally feel better when they are living a better life.
Most texts written thousands of years ago would be open to question of how accurate they are. But what does it matter whether Jesus said exactly what's in the gospels. What we have in them is a very sophisticated and coherent set of moral values and principles on how to live and a religious creed just like in many other world religions. So whether it's actually Jesus exact word doesn't matter. What matters is the quality of the teaching. Does it preach wisdom. Is it something that improves the human condition. Of course it's well known that many people have been killed in the name of Christianity and the Church during the middle ages became very corrupt, a great multinational superstate with very autocratic powers. But just like Communism which was meant to liberate people it abused and misused to control hearts and minds. On the other Christianity has inspired many many great noble acts of love, kindness, compassion and care and some of it's values such as temperance, justice, caring for the poor and it's preaching against gluttony, avarice, greed and so on are in short supply in a world that no longer believes in many christian values. This arguably leaves a modern generation more prone to exploitation by advertisers and so on which manipulate people's greed, and other weaknesses. In a world nowadays where people have to figure out their own set of values, if they don't choose a wise set of values that leaves them prey to manipulation and exploitation. I think Nietszche was correctly worried about humanity sinking into Nihilism and despair with "The Death of God" . Others would argue that secular forms of ethics such as Stoicism could adequately replace Christianity. I have another thread on that topic if anyone wants to respond to it.
I was responding to this:
Quoting Tzeentch
It may matter for different reasons. For some Jesus is the voice of authority, for some human and or others divine, and so, if he said something or not makes a difference for them. But of course, if they think he said it and he didn't, well then, some assumptions may need to be questioned.
Quoting Ross
It is Christianity itself that led to nihilism according to Nietzsche. But this is the way of all self-overcoming. If not Christianity then whatever the dominant beliefs and practices were would eventually be negated.
That's not correct. "As a result, Nietzsche claims that nihilism is the devaluation of the highest values caused by the death of God"
https://brill.com/view/journals/fphc/11/2/article-p298_11.xml
Sure, on all those things.
There are many historical figures of whom we only have written records. It's up to each individual to decide whether they find that convincing or not.
For me it is not necessarily important who wrote it - it's the content of the message.
You would do well to quote Nietzsche directly. See, for example, The Three Metamorphoses, in Zarathustra.
Good point. But I think human culture in general works that way, education and legal systems, from cradle to grave we are conditioned to feel that our behavior attracts punishment or reward.
Quoting TheMadFool
But that's how it tends to be seen in the West where life is fast and furious and all we have time for is five minutes to de-stress before rushing back to work ....
If minimizing metaphysical content in a religion is wise (less foolish @180 Proof) then yes, buddhism stands out as one of the best religions out there. See Occam's Razor.
That said, it's worth noting that the two founders of christianity and buddhism have a place, although both are demoted in the process (Jesus is a bodhisattva and the buddha is a saint), in each other's religion. There's a connection between the two which needs further investigation by those interested.
For one thing, the objective of both Christianity and Buddhism, as I pointed out in a previous post, is to ameliorate/abolish suffering. It's telling, no?, that one simple but not so easy way to do that is to behave i.e. we need to act morally. What this suggests is the intuition that we are our own worst enemy; see the problem of evil & the free will defense.
As for the link between Buddhism and psychology, all I can say is the latter reduces humans to things, objectifies them, kinda like how naturalists study animals in the wild and in captivity; I'm not comfortable with that even though it seems the right way to go about it.
If you want to come at the issue that way, you'll have to admit/concede/accept that the Buddha was clinically depressed and obsessed as it were with suffering i.e. the Buddha was non compos mentis. Wisdom of Buddhism should be the last thing we should be discussing, no?
That's one way of looking at it but observe the residue, what's survived of Buddhism after two and half thousand years of practice cum modding - the truth of suffering & how it can be assuaged/eradicated; only the most relevant aspects of any religion lasts that long as people will simply reject, quite naturally so, any elements that they can't relate to. The same goes for Christianity.
True. Buddhism does seem to be closer to psychology than other traditions.
Could this be why it is less popular? In India, at least, after some initial successes it got nearly wiped out by Hinduism (and to some extent by Islam) and it has never recovered.
It's the opposite actually, India hasn't recovered from Hinduism and Islam. Buddhism & Jainism are impractical some say, too many impossible demands. However, these religions are not meant for us - we're simply the guardians of these teachings, our duty is to create environments where these religions can be kept alive until such a point in time when they can be practiced without people kvetching about how unrealistic they are. That maybe far off in the future - another millennia?
Indians, Hindus or Muslims, no offense intended. Correct me if I'm wrong! Thanks.
I watched the videos.
The presentation on distinguishing the texts from each other is concordant with other analyses I have read. However some elements of Grime's presentation don't hold together for me:
The sharp line drawn between the "Hellenistic" and the "Hebraic" is assumed rather than demonstrated. In the discussion of what is the "natural man", the "wisdom" traditions may come from different ways of conceiving of the divine and our place in the world but it is a world we all live in. To state that the "sayings" from the Q document do not bear a relationship to the good as seen through the Torah is to culturally appropriate the tradition no less than Paul and Augustine attempted to do.
Coffee shot out of my nose when Grimes explained that the "prophetic" portion of the Q sayings was from a spot of bother the region was undergoing. Perhaps he was referring to the Romans' strenuous effort to turn it into their Club Med. Leaving that aside, the vision of the Sage in the Platonic tradition is missing something glaringly evident in the Hebraic. The god of the sage does not place scrolls in the mouths of Prophets to speak to a stiff necked people.
I could go further but I don't want to hijack the thread.
I think the teachings aren't compatible, even though they have been claimed to be.
For example, the contradiction in the dictom "An eye for an eye" versus "Turn the other cheek" is such a fundamental one I don't see how the two could ever be reconciled.
The latter seems to have a lot more in common with the Platonic teachings, for example those of The Republic.
I look forward to your OP explaining how the entire teaching of the Torah can be distilled into quoting:
"An eye for an eye."
I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. Ive never it said that the Buddha was depressed, he May have had moments of unhappiness but that's irrelevant because his teaching has inspired a whole tradition of Wisdom for thousands of years and is one of the main world religions as well as a major world philosophy.
What kind of psychology have you been studying. Are you seriously saying that Victor Frankls book Man's Search for meaning and Carl Jung's notions of The Shadow and Individuation are reducing humans to things. Those two very famous psychologists in fact are against the kind of empirical reductionist materialistic description of the human condition that you find in the logical positivists or Analytic philosophy .
An eye for an eye comes from Exodus 21:24. The paragraph begins, "If people are fighting ...". An eye for an eye means that under the law punishment and compensation should be proportional, that no more than an eye should be taken for the loss of an eye.
Turn the other cheek can be interpreted to mean, do not fight and do not seek punishment or compensation for wrong done to you. There is no contradiction here.
You seem to have traveled some distance from carefully reviewing texts that reveal a number of very different responses to Jesus to assigning parts of Christianity you like to the "good Jesus" while condemning the parts you don't to other groups. What a nifty device to simplify anything.
The limits of that technique set to the side, to imagine that Jesus was not a Jew wrestling with other Jews about was of supreme importance to them turns the whole enterprise into a Philip K Dick novel. I love Philip K Dick but he is not my go to guy for trying to understand what was happening in the small numbers of AD.
In Early Buddhism, there are four Brahamaviharas (or four sublime attitudes, or four divine abodes) (see here in the index for links at the entry Brahmaviharas. [/quote]
Universal metta is supposed to be univeral goodwill, meaning one would have goodwill for everyone, ie. for the tiger, for oneself, and for everyone else. Note: for oneself. Sacrificing oneself to the tiger would not be an act of goodwill for oneself.
In the Buddhist traditions that don't rely closely on the Pali suttas, the emphasis is usually on one brahmavihara (at the expense of others); so, for example, in general in Mahayana, there is an overwhelming focus on karuna/compassion, while Zen focuses on upekkha/equanimity.
Buddhist traditions that rely more closely on the Pali suttas have a more systematic approach (such as some traditions within Theravada) and practice all four brahmaviharas.
So in the example with the tiger, a Thai Forest Tradition Buddhist teacher Thanissaro Bhikkhu would advise to practice the four brahmaviharas in the order starting with metta, goodwill. This means, to first have goodwill for the tiger and for oneself, meaning, one wishes oneself and the tiger to be happy; then, observe as the situation develops, wish that neither oneself nor the tiger would suffer (karuna, compassion, is a wish for living beings not to suffer), and that includes not acting with hostility toward the tiger; then appreciate the good things about the tiger and oneself (mudita, sympathetic joy); and at the end, if the tiger should be the rare man-eating kind, reflect on kamma (upekkha, equanimity, is not simply indifference; the reflection on kamma is crucial for it).
This just in brief, there's a lot more to this. The issue is not as debatable as mainstream Buddhism likes to portray it.
The salient point of the Jataka tales is that they are accounts of the actions of an _un_enlightened being. Some Theravadans see them as cautionary tales about what not to do.
Morality, sila, is central to Buddhist practice.
Sila (virtue, moral conduct) is the cornerstone upon which the entire Noble Eightfold Path is built. The practice of sila is defined by the middle three factors of the Eightfold Path: Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/index.html
The salient difference between the Christian conception of morality and the Buddhist conception of morality is that in Christianity, the moral commandments are supposed to be followed by everyone, under threat of immediate human punishment and eternal divine punishment, whereas in Buddhism, moral precepts are seen as optional, and undertaken and adhered to as a means to an end (ultimately, nirvana). Which is one of the main reasons why Buddhist morality doesn't seem like morality (it lacks the coercive feature typical for Christianiry), and why Buddhism seems more like a philosophy than a religion.
To elaborate:
The story of Jacob wrestling with God is emblematic for Judaism:
There are various aspects of Judaism with which one wrestles or struggles, including struggling to understand what is required of you. Jesus speaks from within this tradition and not in opposition to it. When he says things that appear to be in opposition or contradictory it may be that it is this opposition that we must struggle with if we are to understand.
Yes, absolutely.
- - -
Quoting Ross
The Buddha's happiness couldn't be further away from what psychologists consider happiness.
What is your source for Buddhism? Jack Kornfield?
Only superficially.
We'd need a whole thread for this.
Buddhism (the kind that strives for the complete cessation of suffering), is, essentially, a death project. It can't possibly be popular in the world that is interested in the perpetuation of life.
Why do you say that. So compassion, love, kindness which the Buddha teaches you think psychologists don't think that those values improve happiness. Well what kind of psychology are you thinking about.
On principle, Dharmic religions (notably, Buddhism and Hinduism) are not expansive, evangelical religions, the notion of religious conversion is foreign to them.
Because the happiness of an enlightened being is not about having agreeable food to eat, good family relationships and friends, satisfaction at one's job, and so on, all the things that ordinary people find happiness in and psychologists promote as "normal".
An enlightened being has no desire for sex, for example.
The Buddha's happiness is nothing like the happiness of ordinary people.
Quoting Ross
You need to be more precise here and source your claims about Buddhism.
Provide a canonical reference that says things to the effect that "compassion, love, kindness improve happiness".
Ok here you go.
Buddha's teachings are known as “dharma.” He taught that wisdom, kindness, patience, generosity and compassion were important virtues.
https://www.history.com/topics/religion/buddhism
Now if these are not values which promote happiness tell me what are.
Quoting Fooloso4
:fire:
Granted.
It depends on how much there is to a religion, in one's opinion. In my opinion, there isn't much more to either of the two religions than morality, so to me, they are about morality. That's an interesting assumption I have been making but wasn't aware of until now.
There is the problem of sourgraping, presenting socioeconomic success as less relevant than it is.
Here's it from the mouth of the Buddha himself:-
Rise above your anger through forgiveness and compassion, for yourself, and others.
“Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.”
— Buddha
“Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.”
— Buddha
Nonsense.
Oh dear. This is the standard problem with Buddhism: the pitifully low standard of quotation.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10232/the-motivation-for-false-buddha-quotes
Yes, I wonder why that is. However, I've heard of buddhist kings like Ashoka dispatching missionaries to Sri Lanka.
See Buddhist Missionaries
I don't like the fact that we're being studied like we study animals. There's something alien about it. Sends a chill down my spine.
If the buddha lived in our time, what I said would appear in a psychiatrist's diagnosis of Siddhartha Gautama's "condition".
Look we,ll have to agree to disagree . I agree with the content of the quotes I sent that it is genuinely from Buddhism. I'm not going to change my opinion on that.
The video you linked to has Grimes arguing that the true message of Jesus was not Jewish. He did not talk about his being a Jew or not.
And neither did I. Are we just completely talking past each other?
There is, but there is a difference between presenting socioeconomic success as less relevant than it is and first hand experience that it is not all that there is. There is a point at which more is not better, despite how it may appear.
The issue is not about his identity alone but whether his teaching did or did not involve and draw from Judaism. Grimes is saying it did not. You have a baseball card view of Judaism. Grimes is not going to help you with that deficiency.
And what truth would that be?
I watched your video. You made some ill informed comments. The only assumption I have made so far is that there is some connection between the two events.
I am beginning to think you haven''t listened to the lecture.
Apparently you find this ill-informed? And also something about me saying Jesus was not a Jew?
Again, it seems like you're attacking me based on a position you think I've taken, but I'm having trouble figuring out what position that is.
Whatever it is, it did not take long until you became personal which is usually not a sign of confidence in one's beliefs.
Grimes is making the distinction between the Q document and Judaism in general, not specifically the Torah.
You are the one claiming there is a self evident contradiction between the Torah and that message.
Taken together, that is your position.
I take issue with both components.
I already explained that I wasn't saying that you were saying Jesus was not a Jew as a matter of identity. Your position is that, whoever he was, he was not speaking about or from Judaism. I take issue with that position.
If that hasn't made your position perfectly clear to yourself. You will need to find help elsewhere.
I do agree with you that he was speaking from within Judaism. Yet he was trying to reform Judaism, and as a result some of his teachings are at a variance with the Torah.
This is not my position. My position is the one I have stated here clearly twice before - that there is a clear contradiction between some of the teachings and that they are, in my opinion, fundamental to their respective moral systems.
I can't figure out why you are so eager to misrepresent my position.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus makes clear his strict allegiance o the Law. @Valentinus comment about a Jew wrestling with another Jew is central to understanding this allegiance in practice as seen in Talmud and Midrash, interpretation and commentary on the Law. Even the style of Jesus' comment fits the form. It is dialectical.
The contradiction between 'an eye for an eye' and 'to turn the other cheek' is to me a fundamental one, because the two present entirely different approaches to responding to injustice.
One teaches to respond to an injustice with (at most) an injustice of equal measure, whereas the other teaches that an injustice should never be responded to with an injustice of one's own.
The former is legal and applies to all who are under the Law, the latter is a matter of personal choice. An eye for an eye does not teach that one should or must respond by taking an eye for an eye.
From the Sermon on the Mount:
Jesus is not rejecting the Law. He exhorts his followers to righteousness beyond the Law. This can be clearly seen in what follows regarding murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, and an eye for an eye.
About eyes he also says under adultery:
That is Grime's position. For him, Jesus is a Sage in the Platonic tradition.
You are using Grime's work to claim that there is an absolute contradiction between the the old and new books in regards to, as you say, their respective moral systems.
That is certainly the case.
I remember a Jewish comedian being asked why Christianity emerged. He said:
"We got too good at arguing with each other. Somebody called the cops. Then the neighbors got involved."
Ok, I'll accept that you didn't say that but just imagine how pretty it would've been in if the founder of Judaism, Moses, were a Hindu, the founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha, were a Jew, the founder of Christianity, Jesus were a buddhist, and, last but not the least, the founder of Islam, Mohammad, were a christian. All our problems would be solved - all religions would simply be a chain of revelations cum philosophy.
Or according to the spirit of the Law, rather affording so much importance to its letter. As any rabbi of the time, he had his own interpretation of the Torah. Things like: the sabat is made for man, not man for the sabat.
Quoting Tzeentch
That is true as far as contrasting the OT and NT goes. And it's not just about injustice, it's also about the relationship with gentiles.
Nine centuries separate Leviticus from the OT. Things changed a lot during this time, even within Judaism. So the people Jesus was talking to were not all fundamentalist followers of the Law of Moses to the letter. They all had their own personal and/or sectarian interpretation of the Law, some more lenient and modern, others more strict and literal.
One of the issues, as said above, was the relationship with gentiles. While the Law was written for the Jewish nation conceived as a territorial entity, at the time of Jesus many Jewish communities were already living as a minority among pagans, ie in the diaspora. Some of the Leviticus makes it difficult to develop business relationships with non-Jews. More fundamentally, the status of chosen nation was being ruffled by centuries of pagan domination. Being infeodated to Rome was humbling if not humiliating. The posture a pious Jew should adopt vis à vis Rome is broached upon in the Gospels (give to Caesar...).
Another issue calling for an agiornamento was capital punishments, liberally given in the Leviticus to anyone from an unruly child to a fan of lobster, and evidently to adulterous folks. It was already heavy-handed in the original Law, I think, and 9 centuries later it must have felt a bit 'stone-aged'.
They always do. :-)
Perhaps unfortunately, we all have neighbours, and our relationship with them is important. One of the questions salient in John is "who is my neighbor?"
He says:
It is Paul who makes the distinction between the letter and spirit of the Law.
Quoting Olivier5
Given the quote above, it seems as if Jesus himself might have been just such a fundamentalist.
Quoting Olivier5
Hence the old joke about two rabbis and three opinions.
Quoting Olivier5
An important point. Judaism never had the "official doctrines" that are found in Christianity after the establishment of the Church. In fact, the first Christians were guided by inspiration, the indwelling of spirit. This was problematic for the development of a universal Church with a single teaching.
No, I am not.
I linked Pierre Grimes's work because it touches on some interesting ideas about the subject of this thread.
The point I made is entirely my own and consists of spotting the contradiction I have already laid out several times now.
It's been a while since I watched those lectures, but as far as I know they never touch on this specific subject.
He says many things, not all of which point to literalism. I mean, there's a certain ambiguity in Jesus, as recorded.
Quoting Fooloso4
The Torah is an official doctrine, though. And it prevented the social evolution of the Jewish people for centuries. Until the Talmud sort of updated the whole thing.
Yes, I agree. Previously I said:
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting Olivier5
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/doctrine-dogma/
Quoting Olivier5
According to the Talmud, the oral Torah existed alongside the written Torah. Of course this is historically problematic since both are claimed to originate with Moses. In any case, the Torah appears to be a patchwork rather than a doctrine.
It's prescriptive in any case. It tells people what to do and not do, whom to worship and whom not to, how to worship, what to eat and not eat, etc. Maybe it is not a credo but it's a value system. One in which believing in God is strongly encouraged.
Yes, Torah is the Law.
In keeping with the topic, we should consider the different Jewish groups at the time of Jesus. In addition to differences between sects there were also differences with regard to such things as militantism and @Tzeentchquietism. Passages in the NT that support quitism are not evidence of a break with Judaism.
Just where Jesus fit in all this is not clear. It may be that rather than an affiliation with one or another of these groups he did what many others did then and continue to do today, accepting those beliefs and practices that seem most true to them. Many of the things he was said to have taught can be found in the diverse beliefs of the time. With knowledge of this diversity the idea that Jesus broke with or taught things contrary to Judaism becomes far less tenable.
Drop the strawmanning already.
Indeed, they align well with the House of Hillel, and against the House of Shammai.
Quoting Fooloso4
But didn't we agree that Judaism at the time was plural? Jesus was certainly, along with the Essenes, opposed to the Sadducee leadership in the Temple. He is also affiliated with John the Baptist, who was a sort of anti-establishment prophet of doom and redemption (quite typical of the culture). The anti-Hasmonean element is difficult to miss.
Crypto anti-Hasmonean, anti-Sadducee... That's already a lot. But he seemed to have also taken issue with the by-then up and coming Pharisees. Or at least with some of them.
He was radical alright. In my view, in a good way, though a bit improvised perhaps. Not the most methodical religious figure ever. Not the clearest either. But inspired and inspiring, yes.
He did change the world, in the end. Absolutely not the way he envisaged it -- which in my view was the typical messianic angelic war, as reflected in the Book of Daniel where the title 'Son of Man' comes from. Jesus expected the end of days, quite clearly; he thought he was ushering it all in. Didn't work out this way but as I said, he still had a huge impact.
To be precise, the lectures do not address the absolute differences you claim to exist between "moral systems." The lectures claim Jesus was a Sage in the vernacular of the Hellenistic philosophies current at that time. Grimes also claims the "wisdom" traditions of the "Platonic" are incompatible with the "Hebraic." and that is how he can figure Jesus was not drawing from the world of Judaism as the source of his illumination.
If it was a text, I would quote it for you. I am not going to tell you where these things are said in the video. You will have to do that bit of work by yourself.
I don't know what you mean. If you mean your name was combined with quietism that was not intentional. The @ function did not leave a space. If you mean that you think quietism is a strawman then you only have to read your own posts to see why I addressed it.
And yet despite the opposition both houses are firmly within Judaism.
Quoting Olivier5
It is this pluralism that makes the claim that he broke with Judaism questionable. Since the Essenes and Sadducees were both Jewish sects, if Jesus was with the Essenes in opposing the Sadducee leadership in the Temple, this is not an indication that Jesus was opposed to or advocated something contrary to Judaism.
Quoting Olivier5
Perhaps. I don't know enough about the different views within Judaism to say whether his views aligned with other Jews who might also have been seen as radical, as opposed to being unique in his radicalism.
Quoting Olivier5
I think that is an open question. If not for Paul we might not have even heard about Jesus. Paul was a Pharisee and believed in resurrection. If Jesus was in agreement with the Essenes he would have denied the resurrection of the body.
Quoting Olivier5
Some interpreted the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God as an internal transformation rather than the geo-political transformation envisioned in some messianic views.
This view was strenuously deleted by the early Christian Fathers as a species of heresy.
While I am not a mythicist - do we have good reason to believe that Jesus was actually a living person and that the Gospels contain anything this Yeshua (if he lived) might have said or done? It seems we may be commenting on literary fiction and/or myth and determining Jesus' view of Judaism is like trying to understand Slias Marner's view of Calvinism.
Fact or Fiction, the story has had many consequences. Our lives have been interwoven in the story as a matter of it being repeated many times.
It is not like figuring out the motives of a character in a novel.
Well it does seem to be rather similar to what you say it is not, but I agree scripture has had real world impact/repercussions, as have the myths held by all cultures. Claims made in a book can shape lives, regardless of the book's merits.
Correct. Of course he never thought of founding a new religion.
Quoting Fooloso4
Shut and closed, rather. That others such as Paul piggy-backed on him only shows how vibrantly the message was resonating.
Quoting Fooloso4
And this may be one of his deepest intuitions: the solution is perhaps not one big kaboom, with angels blowing celestial trumpets. Maybe it's already here, in every one's own longing for justice and love.
The same question could be asked of Socrates, who could be a figment of Plato's imagination... Either one trusts the source or one doesn't.
Not really relevant - what matters about Socrates is a method of doing philosophy. We lose nothing if he turns out to be 'made up'. With Jesus there's rather more at stake.
Nothing is "turning out". In both cases there's a body of texts, and there's us. Either you trust (by and large) those sources or you don't. Either you are interested in those texts or you are not.
One model I’m aware of is R M Bucke’s 1901 ‘Cosmic Consciousness’. In it, he says that those designated prophets or sages (he includes both Jesus and Buddha, but with many other examples) have realised a state of being which is as far beyond the normal human state, as the human state is beyond the comprehension of animals. Essentially Bucke’s argument is that those possessing ‘cosmic consciousness’ are harbingers of humanity’s future evolution, as exemplars of the state that all humankind is evolving towards. It’s a dramatic kind of book, the original edition, which was re-produced in the edition I have, has a very specific layout, with Bucke’s translations of the various source materials along with his commentaries in small print interposed in the page margins.
There’s plenty to criticize about Bucke’s work, also, in that he was plainly a very starry-eyed idealist - exemplified by his fervent conviction that air travel would soon be invented and introduce an era of universal peace. But overall, his idea that religious insight is an actual faculty or quality of insight possessed by people of genius rings true with me. He’s attempting a kind of synthesis of science and spirituality which typified many writings of that period. It also provides a kind of anthropological framework within which to understand the different faith traditions, without necessarily favouring one over the other.
Of course, but I've already stated the important difference, either you are interested in that difference or you are not.
Perhaps you haven't understood it.
Here it is again -
Quoting Tom Storm
Would you like to expand on this? What more is at stake with Jesus?
[quote=Wikipedia]Does the Tathagata exist after death? Does he not exist after death? Does he both exist and not exist after death? Does he neither exist nor not exist after death?..." "If I thought so, I would say so...I don't say so...I don't say it is not." This is the fourth case.[/quote]
Nagarjuna's Tetralemma
Either something is or it is not.
1. It is. No!
2. It is not. No!
3. It is and it is not. No!
4. Neither it is nor it is not. No!
What is it?
:up: Fact is stranger than fiction.
[quote=Mark Twain]Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.[/quote]
Incomprehensibilis.
:rofl: I'm not the brightest bulb on the chandelier but, if you take notice, a lot of the action in philosophy centers on the resolution, only attempts at it, of paradoxes. It seems as though at the heart of any philosophical position there lies an antinomy that threatens to destroy it from the inside.
Incomprehensibilis!
Thanks to @Tzeentch for the Pierre Grimes video.
I have a Christian, or maybe Post-Christian, background and a lifelong interest in Buddhism. The thing which drew me to Buddhism was the emphasis on learning by experience - namely that of sitting meditation. Together with a philosophy that is both deep and subtle. I think overall, Buddhism is more able to accomodate the discoveries of modern science but it's not a foregone conclusion. I'm learning to respect Christian Platonism which also has many depths and treasures. But I can't accept the historical narrative of Christianity, the belief in the second coming, and other fundamental elements of Christian dogma. That's where Buddhism has won out in my view, but I'm open to persuasion.
incidentally got my eye on this book.
We do not know what his message was in distinction from the messages that emerged in his name and was in some cases suppressed.
Quoting Olivier5
The central theme of this belief is that we all contain a divine spark that can be discovered. It is at hand. But in either case, it supports my point. Where there are varying teachings said to be his we do not know the source.
The work of your namesake being a prime victim.
Yes, indeed.
It is hard for a Gnostic Bishop to find work in this town.
Or more prosaically, that human beings make their own heaven or hell here on earth, depending on how they treat each other. That cycles of violence need to be broken. You must know the Jewish story of the long spoons.
Quoting Fooloso4
Legend and the evangelists added a lot, but I doubt they voluntarily suppressed anything. The gnostic tradition 'pretends' or implies that the 4 canonical evangelists did hide -- or were not privy to -- all sort of escatological stuff... I don't know. The gnostics may have started with good intentions but lost themselves in considerations of overt polytheism, too far from the original (monotheist) Jesus IMO.
I had to look it up. A summary from Wiki:
Quoting Olivier5
The Church Fathers, based on their own authority, decided what was canonical and what was heretical. Prior to this "inspiration", speculation, and stories grew unchecked by anything except personal conviction or the shared convictions of different groups.
Quoting Olivier5
I think Jesus would have been appalled to learn that he had been deified, a man made into a god. But paganism has been a part of Christianity almost from the beginning, something inherited, embraced and fought against.
Awful.
The story has it that one good Rabbi Shlomo from Riga was so righteous in the way of G.d that G.d decided to grant him a wish. He send an angel down here to deal with it. Since our good rabbi wished to see heaven and hell, the angel first carried him to hell.
Surprisingly, hell was a luxurious garden. The rabbi arrived at a beautiful palace, in which he found people sitting on both sides of a long table loaded with all sorts of food. But the people looked all sad, angry and emaciated. That's because both their hands were tied to long wooden spoon with which it was totally impossible for them to eat.
So Shlomo thought: "So this is hell: being constantly tempted but unable to satisfy oneself."
But then he was brought to heaven. There was the same luxurious garden, the same beautiful castle, and in it, people sitting along a similar table, with the same long spoon on their hands. And they were all eating, and merry, because they were serving each other food across the table with their long spoons.
So Shlomo asked to be sent back to hell so he could explain to those poor people the solution to their problem. When he reached there, and told one man at the table that he should try and feed the guy in front of him, and vice versa... the man replied: "I'd rather be hungry for eternity than feed this asshole!"
A better version!
Certainly. Some of the numbers I've seen is that a person needs to easily enough make 20,000 USD per year in order to be happy; a more recent number is 75,000 USD. The idea is that making more money than that doesn't increase a person's happiness, but that earning less than that can be detrimental to it.
I agree that there is a point at which more is not better, despite how it may appear. But here's the crux: Are those who are not past that point (or nowhere near it) justified to value wisdom over socioeconomic success?
We're talking here specifically about people who work for a living, not about populations like monks who live off of alms. Monks have chosen not to work for a living and they live in a very specific socioeconomic niche, so what "works for them" cannot and should not be uncritically transposed onto the working population.
We've been over this.
If Jesus was a real person, and has the power as stated in the Bible, then, if you don't accept him as your lord and savior, you will burn in hell for all eternity with no chance of salvation.
Indeed, there have been Buddhist missionaries. But on the whole, they seem to function as a defense of Buddhism against the expansion of other religions; or they focus on spreading Buddhism for lay people (and monasticism only as an adjacent or auxiliary option); ie. the aims for such missionary work are worldly. (And some Buddhist missionary organizations seem to be intent primarily on making money ...)
As to your first question, the concepts of rebirth/reincarnation and karma play a central role in Dharmic religions. With them, among many other things, also the person's religious/spiritual status is explained, and their religious/spiritual prospects. With an outlook like that, there's not much that an outsider could see themselves do for another person.
The other factor is that in Dharmic religions, there is no threat of eternal damnation, there is no urgency of "get it right this time around or suffer forever, no second chances", so there is no metaphysical impetus to get people to convert, unlike in Abrahamic religions.
I am not sure what you are getting at. If someone is poor and values wisdom over socioeconomic success, depending on how this affects others, I am not sure I see a problem with what they value. I see these as two different things though. The former is roughly a matter of who you are and the latter what you have. Whether or not one interferes with the other depends on what one assumes the pursuit of wisdom is about.
If you are saying we should not disregard the importance of socioeconomic needs out of some lofty notion of wisdom then I agree.
If Jesus was a real (normal) person, he was the son of a man and a woman, and the narrative was tampered to make him the Son of God.
What you are saying is: If Jesus was a magical person as stated in the Bible, then all miscreants go to hell.
I'm not the one saying that, Christianity (most schools of it, anyway) are saying that.
Do you want to divorce the Jesus of the Bible from Christianity, as well as divorce the Bible from Christianity?
So what are you saying, exactly? Sorry but I'm tired of guessing.
Really?
My point, (which was clear and is really unnecessary in this otherwise interesting discussion) is that if Jesus was not real then Christianity, as is practiced by 2.5 billion people, is false.
Absolutely.
Indeed! It could also be that buddhists are ok with coexisting other religions because they view them as simply alternative routes to the same destination - there being no concept of orthodoxa (right view), just various means to one ultimate end which is nirvana aka salvation.
Right! I haven't been able to get my hands on a good explanation of Nagarjuna's tetralemma on the www. Do you know of any online resources I can bite into?
Does This definition help?
The first article on the 'eightfold path' is samma ditthi, generally translated as 'right view'. I think the proper translation of ‘orthodoxa’ is ‘right belief’ or ‘right worship’.
Copy that! Thanks!
Quoting Wheatley
Yes!
Nagarjuna's Tetralemma
For a given proposition P,
1. P (P True).....No! [no affirmation]
2. Not P (P False).....No! [no negation]
[1 and 2 suggests that there's a third alternative for P, one of them being a contradiction]
3. P and Not P (P True and P False).....No! [the third alternative is not a contradiction]
4. Neither P nor not P (Neither P True nor P False).....No! [no third alternative for P]
The point of Nagarjuna's tetralemma is, for any proposition P, it's truth value is indeterminate but not that the fault lies in us i.e. there's a lacuna in our epistemology but in a Werner Heisenberg kinda way.
Your point remained unstated until now, so it could not possibly be described as clear, at least not to me. I know it's clear in your mind but you still need to write it down.
Christians have good reasons to believe that Jesus was a historical character, and that his message is recorded by and large faithfully in the Gospels.
I agree Im more drawn to Buddhism. I didn't know anything about it until I came across some books in it a few years ago and Einzelgangers channel on YouTube was a big inspiration. I also didn't realize that there was much more similarity between Ancient Greek philosophy, such as Stoicism and Buddhism. Western philosophy seems to have gone in a very different direction from the Middle Ages and had no contact anymore with Eastern philosophy in the modern period until the 19th century with Schopenhauer who was one of the very few western thinkers to be interested in Buddhism. Even today there seems to be a lot of ignorance in the west about Eastern philosophy.
He explains it very lucidly. I like the way he tells stories in lot of his videos.
I suppose there are California Buddhists who believe such a thing (a "California Buddhist" is a person with some interest in Buddhism, but who believes Buddhism is, basically, whatever you want it to be (as long as it's something politically correct)).
Otherwise, Buddhists believe there is Right View, and they don't believe that "all paths lead to the top of the mountain".
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm quite sure I've already given you links. The key is in understanding why the terms "exist", "not exist", "neither exist nor not exist" don't apply to the Tathagata.
I say that buddhism doesn't have the notion of orthodoxa (right belief) thanks @Wayfarer because it doesn't have an active proselytizing wing/arm unlike christianity and even islam. This wouldn't have been the case if buddhism considers itself orthodoxa as that would entail a religious responsibility to convert people.
You'll need to unpack this, spell out the assumptions you're working with.
Why should orthodoxy entail a religious responsibility to convert people?
(Although if this is what you believe, this means that you expect religious people to explain things to you, instead of you proactively looking into things on your own.)
If a certain group is under the impression that its belief system is the right one (orthodoxa = right belief), that group will also consider it a duty/responsibility to edify others of it.
Not at all.
Rather, my intuition is that such an individual or group who is certain to have found The Truth will protect it, seek to keep it for themselves, and share it only with those who prove themselves worthy of it.
Are you saying some people are unworthy of the truth, orthodoxa (right belief), which is just another way of saying some people should suffer? Whatever belief system tells you that is surely not the right one.
A belief system that tells you that everyone is equally qualified for the highest attainments is surely not the right one.
Buddhism has no "no child left behind" policy.
One word, bodhisattva. I'm told their primary goal is the liberation of all sentient beings. As for "no child left behind" policy, never heard of it though it squares with the bodhisattva's mission.
Inform yourself better. They're actually perfectly ready to leave you behind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act
A bodhisattva who leaves (samsara) is not a bodhisattva.
I fail to see the relevance.
A bodhisattva cannot leave samsara; a bodhisattva is a samsaric being. "Bodhisattva" literally means 'buddha to be', or 'future buddha'. Ie. not a buddha yet.
You keep talking about how religious people have the obligation to help others, e.g.
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm saying that in Early Buddhism, there is no such obligation.