Eastern Religions

[altersteve]

I have a very strong admiration and respect for Eastern religions, and I love the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, Confucius, Lao Tzu, etc. I've always told people that if I wasn't a Christian, I'd probably be a Buddhist or a Taoist. I already try to make an effort to practice things such as mindfulness and meditation, and I've even started doing yoga recently as part of my daily workout routine. I believe these are extremely compatible with the gospel; they have helped me feel the Spirit much more strongly.

What are your thoughts on these religions, and how do you believe God works through them to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man?

[volgadon]

Preach my Gospel, IIRC, mentions Confucius among great religious figures.

[Libs]

I am a member of a Hindu/Christian Church, so I think they are very compatible.

In my former Ward, we had a sister who taught Hatha Yoga, in the Cultural Hall, on Saturday mornings.

[inquiringmind]

I've always told people that if I wasn't a Christian, I'd probably be a Buddhist or a Taoist

From what I've read of Taoism, it's basic tenets seem compatible with the Judaism, Christianity, and Mormonism.

But isn't the ultimate goal of Buddhism to escape the cycle of reincarnation by being entirely annihilated (and that by annihilating all desire within oneself)?

Isn't that entirely incompatible with the Gospel??

For example, isn't the Buddha reported to have said "do nothing, either good or evil" (the idea being that whether you create good karma, or bad karma, you'll be feeding the force that keeps you trapped in an endless cycle of death and rebirth)?

Edited February 27, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Libs]

Karma is created from desire, not really from action. I think Buddha was talking about desires (having none), because that will pull us back to this physical plane. Our egos can be fed, even by the "good" things we do, leaving us with a "desire" to do good, so we can feel good. Being One with God means having everything, but desiring nothing. There is complete fulfillment in God.

[inquiringmind]

Karma is created from desire, not really from action. I think Buddha was talking about desires (having none), because that will pull us back to this physical plane. Our egos can be fed, even by the "good" things we do, leaving us with a "desire" to do good, so we can feel good. Being One with God means having everything, but desiring nothing. There is complete fulfillment in God.

You said you attend a Christian/ Hindu Church, and isn't there a difference between the end goal of Hinduism and Buddhism?

Hinduism is a Theist religion, and the end goal is to be one with God (the one God behind all the other gods seen as emanations in Hinduism.)

Buddhism is a rather pessimistic, agnostic Philosophy that equates life with desire, and desire with suffering.

As I understand it, the idea that Nirvana is some kind of conscious existence is a western misinterpretation of Buddhism, and the end goal of the Buddhist is to cease to exist.

Am I wrong?

Edited February 27, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Libs]

Yes, you are wrong from what I understand of Buddhism, anyway, and I have read a lot about it and even visited a Buddhist Temple, recently. Buddhism is based on the Eight Fold Path, set down by Buddha, after his enlightenment. The basics are really very similar to Hinduism. The path is meditation - the goal is Oneness with God or Enlightenment.

I think you are confusing "ceasing to exist" with the "ego" ceasing to exist. In most eastern religions there is a distinction between the ego and the soul. The ego, along with the body, is ever changing, temporary, and a result of attachment and desires. Meditation on God is a way to become free from these desires and thus free from the cycle of incarnations that result from desire..and which keep us from God (or at least keep us from being aware of God).

Edited February 27, 2012 by Libs

[altersteve]

From what I've read of Taoism, it's basic tenets seem compatible with the Judaism, Christianity, and Mormonism.

But isn't the ultimate goal of Buddhism to escape the cycle of reincarnation by being entirely annihilated (and that by annihilating all desire within oneself)?

Isn't that entirely incompatible with the Gospel??

For example, isn't the Buddha reported to have said "do nothing, either good or evil" (the idea being that whether you create good karma, or bad karma, you'll be feeding the force that keeps you trapped in an endless cycle of death and rebirth)?

Certain parts of Buddhism are very incompatible with the gospel, but Buddhism does not teach that we must become "entirely annihilated." The major teaching of Buddhism is that we should all seek to liberate ourselves by following the Noble Eightfold Path, the means by which one is said to be freed from hatred, delusion, and suffering. In order to be liberated, one must have a correct outlook on life and nature, maintain positive thoughts about ourselves and others, stay mindful, not act in ways that bring harm to oneself or to others, etc. Each of these principles are clearly compatible with the teachings of the Savior.

Eastern religions are all about peace and kindness towards others, which is what I love about them. Even if I don't agree with some ideas, the underlying principles are beautiful.

[inquiringmind]

Yes, you are wrong from what I understand of Buddhism, anyway, and I have read a lot about it and even visited a Buddhist Temple, recently. Buddhism is based on the Eight Fold Path, set down by Buddha, after his enlightenment. The basics are really very similar to Hinduism. The path is meditation - the goal is Oneness with God or Enlightenment.

I think you are confusing "ceasing to exist" with the "ego" ceasing to exist. In most eastern religions there is a distinction between the ego and the soul. The ego, along with the body, is ever changing, temporary, and a result of attachment and desires. Meditation on God is a way to become free from these desires and thus free from the cycle of incarnations that result from desire..and which keep us from God (or at least keep us from being aware of God).

I could be wrong, but my sources lead me to believe you've misunderstood Buddhism.

Where Buddha departed most radically from Hinduism was in his doctrine of "anatta", the notion that individuals do not possess eternal souls. Instead of eternal souls, individuals consist of a "bundle" of habits, memories, sensations, desires, and so forth, which together delude one into thinking that he or she consists of a stable, lasting self. Despite its transitory nature, this false self hangs together as a unit, and even reincarnates in body after body. In Buddhism, as well as in Hinduism, life in a corporeal body is viewed negatively, as the source of all suffering. Hence, the goal is to obtain release. In Buddhism, this means abandoning the false sense of self so that the bundle of memories and impulses disintegrates, leaving nothing to reincarnate and hence nothing to experience pain. From the perspective of present-day, world-affirming Western society, the Buddhist vision cannot but appear distinctly unappealing: Not only is this life portrayed as unattractive, the prospect of nirvana, in which one dissolves into nothingness, seems even less desirable. A modern-day Buddha might respond, however, that our reaction to being confronted with the dark side of life merely shows how insulated we are from the pain and suffering that is so fundamental to human existence.

http://www.near-deat...buddhism04.html

In addition, Buddhism seems to be agnostic when it comes to the existence of God (or gods.)

The Buddha neither denies nor accepts a creator,^[4] denies endorsing any views on creation^[5] and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.^[6][7] Some teachers tell students beginning Buddhist meditation that the notion of divinity is not incompatible with Buddhism,^[8] but dogmatic beliefs in a Supreme God are considered to pose a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana,^[9] the highest goal of Buddhist practice.^[10]

http://en.wikipedia....God_in_Buddhism

How can the goal be "Oneness with God" when the existence of God isn't even a central or essential part of the belief system?

Edited February 27, 2012 by inquiringmind

[CV75]

What are your thoughts on these religions, and how do you believe God works through them to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man?

i think these religions encourage attitudes of introspection (the "still small voice" illuminating the truth that is found in one's mortal environment), humility, and reverence so that adherents can be prepared for and recognize the message of the Gospel. I beleive false teachings/doctrines that accompny these systems are only secondary, and heeding the primary teachings would assist one in letting these go in favor of Gospel, whenever he hears it.

[DarkScythe]

In the great words of chaos magicans, Nothing is true; Everything is permitted or Everything is true; Nothing is permitted. So there is nothing wrong with using elements of Eastern Religion with whatever you believe.

[saemo]

Certain parts of Buddhism are very incompatible with the gospel, but Buddhism does not teach that we must become "entirely annihilated." The major teaching of Buddhism is that we should all seek to liberate ourselves by following the Noble Eightfold Path,

The "liberate ourselves" bit is what causes this belief/practice to not be in alignment with Jesus Christ. As Christians, we don't liberate ourselves, we are liberated by Jesus Christ.

There are also major issues with the Indian form of Hinduism, and the caste system. This is completely incompatible with the message of Jesus Christ, who raises all with Himself. He consistently taught that the least, the meek, the poor, are those who inhabit the Kingdom of Heaven. Hinduism teaches that the poor, lower castes, are in this state because of previous actions/inactions in a previous life, and they have to redeem themselves in this life, hopefully breaking the cycle of reincarnation. Indian Hindus of higher castes are loathe to help the lower castes in any way, as they believe by doing so they stop the lower caste person from redeeming themselves for the next life. This is not compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In a comparative religious course I had in college, the professor made this comparison:

Christianity has the view that we have a beginning, and the goal is to continue forward into eternity, while Buddhism has the view that we have no beginning, and the goal is to end our eternal existence, such as it is.

Mormonism has a little twist of both, with a view that we have no beginning and the goal is to continue forward into eternity.

Other than that, I studied Eastern religious fairly in depth many years ago, and at one point considered converting to Hinduism. The problem for me was, at the time I was an atheist, and the multiple divinities was something I just couldn't get past. The idea of the divine existing in all of us, rather than in a God of some kind, was appealing at the time, but it no longer is. I belong to Christ now, and need no other.

Peace.

Edited February 27, 2012 by saemo

[Libs]

Inquiringmind, I don't claim to understand every aspect of Buddhism, but I would stop short of calling it agnostic or atheistic. I think that is a misunderstanding of the religion. It's a difficult religion to understand, as there are many aspects and probably many interpretations, but Nirvana is perfect Oneness with God. God, in this religion, is not a person, but rather a state of being. I would liken it, to some degree, to the LDS Celestial Kingdom, where one finally attains mastery over their environment and becomes One with God and possesses all of the powers of a god.

[Libs]

The problem for me was, at the time I was an atheist, and the multiple divinities was something I just couldn't get past.

There are many sects of Hinduism and their beliefs are all somewhat different. They don't believe in many "Gods"...I would say all, without exception, believe in One God, worshiped in many forms. Some believe only Krishna is the true Godhead, and all others are his representatives. Others worship Shiva as Supreme Godhead. But, basically, most believe that we are progressing towards union with God (however you see him/her/it) through multiple reincarnations, both here on earth and then on higher planes.

[Chris Smith]

Inquiringmind, I don't claim to understand every aspect of Buddhism, but I would stop short of calling it agnostic or atheistic. I think that is a misunderstanding of the religion. It's a difficult religion to understand, as there are many aspects and probably many interpretations, but Nirvana is perfect Oneness with God. God, in this religion, is not a person, but rather a state of being. I would liken it, to some degree, to the LDS Celestial Kingdom, where one finally attains mastery over their environment and becomes One with God and possesses all of the powers of a god.

I don't claim to be an expert on Buddhism, but I've read some books on the topic, and here's my understanding. There are theistic variants of Buddhism, but they generally result from admixtures with other religions. There are schools of Buddhism that treat nirvana as something other than the dissolution of self, but they are generally considered unorthodox. The best evidence suggests that Gautama Buddha was an atheist for whom the goal-- nirvana-- was essentially to cease existing (by recognizing that one never existed in the first place). What you describe is more Hindu than Buddhist. Hindus are generally theistic and strive toward unity with God/Brahman.

[Chris Smith]

In response to the OP, this post may interest you. After describing a number of similarities and a few key differences between the Buddhist and Mormon cosmologies, I write,

So while Mormonism and Buddhism have very similar anthropologies, they draw very different theological implications from them. We might summarize the difference by saying that Mormonism is optimistic, whereas Buddhism is pessimistic. In Buddhism, the cycle of reincarnation is seen as an endless and pointless existence filled with continual striving and suffering. The goal of a good Buddhist is to escape the cycle altogether by deconstructing and ultimately dissolving the self. In Mormonism, the endless striving and movement between stages is actually seen as a good thing. Far from escape, the eternal goal of a good Mormon is in fact perpetuation of the system, by creating new worlds and populating them with human souls!

The similar ontological foundations of the two movements means that there's a great basis for interfaith dialogue here. Both movements might be able to learn from each other. For example, a Buddhist might ask a Mormon, "What's to stop a god from falling or sinning?" The Book of Mormon's own "proseperity cycle" seems more consistent with Buddhist expectations than with Mormon ones. When beings reach a high level of achievement, they tend to become proud, complacent, and self-satisfied. Why doesn't Mormonism make allowance for regression as well as progression? Alternatively, our Buddhist interlocutor might ask, "What is the point of the plan of salvation? Human life is full of misery and suffering. Am I really a son of perdition if I refuse to strive for its perpetuation?" To this a Mormon might pose an equally provocative counter-question. "Instead of 'striving' to escape the cycle of existence, why not just go with the flow? Why not just try to reduce the total amount of suffering in the world, so the endless continuation of human life won't be so bad?"

Edited February 27, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Libs]

Hi Chris. Thanks for the input.

I still don't believe the goal in Buddhism is "compete annihilation"...annihilation of the ego and karmic consequences..yes, but most do believe in a higher existence of some sort.

I found this definition and several others, that seem to bear that out.

Most schools of Buddhism explain Nirvana as a state of bliss or peace, and this state may be experienced in life, or it may be entered into at death.

The word Nirvana means "to extinguish," such as extinguishing the flame of a candle. This "extinguishment" is not understood by Buddhists to mean annihilation, however. Rather, it is thought of as passing into another kind of existence.

http://buddhism.abou.../nirvanadef.htm

I've read a lot on Buddhism, as well (Alan Watts, a Zen Buddhist, was a favorite of mine, back in the 70's). I don't think there would be much point in a religion that was striving towards complete annihilation. What would really be the point? Freedom from suffering, I guess, but I think most people will take "some kind" of existence, even with a little suffering, over nothing at all.

Perhaps there are some sects that believe this (?), but I am not familiar with them.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

Interesting comments about the similarities and differences between Buddhism and Mormonism. I have found a lot of similarities (many) between Mormonism and Hinduism, as well. I think one can find some similar basic truths and principles in almost all religions. I don't think that is just coincidence.

[Chris Smith]

I don't think there would be much point in a religion that was striving towards complete annihilation. What would really be the point? Freedom from suffering, I guess, but I think most people will take "some kind" of existence, even with a little suffering, over nothing at all.

I think the problem lies in the way you're framing the question. A Buddhist wouldn't say that non-existence is the goal. A Buddhist would say that non-existence is the reality. The goal is simply to recognize and accept this reality. The Buddhist would agree with you that most people are uncomfortable with the idea of non-existence, but he would say that that is precisely the problem we need to overcome. Clinging to the illusion of the self sets one up for disappointment and suffering. Peace comes from accepting the reality of no-self.

Perhaps there are some sects that believe this (?), but I am not familiar with them.

There are basically two major interpretations of Nirvana in Theravada Buddhism. One holds that Nirvana is a kind of annihilation, while the other holds that it's a kind of unity with All. Both schools of thought would agree that nirvana involves the cessation of the illusion of self, but they differ on exactly what that looks like. I don't see any substantive difference between the two, frankly.

Mahayana Buddhism is a bit different, and finds a wide variety of creative ways to rebel against the "no-self" doctrine. Some Mahayana sects even believe in an immortal soul.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

ACK! I clicked "edit" on my post, and the board somehow erased it!

EDIT: Never mind, now it's back. Momentary glitch with my browser, maybe.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Libs]

I think the problem lies in the way you're framing the question. A Buddhist wouldn't say that non-existence is the goal. A Buddhist would say that non-existence is the reality. The goal is simply to recognize and accept this reality. The Buddhist would agree with you that most people are uncomfortable with the idea of non-existence, but he would say that that is precisely the problem we need to overcome. Clinging to the illusion of the self sets one up for disappointment and suffering. Peace comes from accepting the reality of no-self.

Yes, I agree, that was poor framing (even for a Hindu! )..as part of the idea is to refrain from "goals" or desires of any kind. I do understand the concept of selflessness (at least, theoretically), so I think we are in agreement here.

There are basically two major interpretations of Nirvana in Theravada Buddhism. One holds that Nirvana is a kind of annihilation, while the other holds that it's a kind of unity with All. Both schools of thought would agree that nirvana involves the cessation of the illusion of self, but they differ on exactly what that looks like. I don't see any substantive difference between the two, frankly.

Mahayana Buddhism is a bit different, and finds a wide variety of creative ways to rebel against the "no-self" doctrine. Some Mahayana sects even believe in an immortal soul.

Okay, thanks for the information. That sounds about right. Like Hinduism (and most other religions, I suppose) there are variances in belief.

[Libs]

ACK! I clicked "edit" on my post, and the board somehow erased it!

EDIT: Never mind, now it's back. Momentary glitch with my browser, maybe.

Hate when that happens. The board is a bit glitchy, today.

[altersteve]

The "liberate ourselves" bit is what causes this belief/practice to not be in alignment with Jesus Christ. As Christians, we don't liberate ourselves, we are liberated by Jesus Christ.

There are also major issues with the Indian form of Hinduism, and the caste system. This is completely incompatible with the message of Jesus Christ, who raises all with Himself. He consistently taught that the least, the meek, the poor, are those who inhabit the Kingdom of Heaven. Hinduism teaches that the poor, lower castes, are in this state because of previous actions/inactions in a previous life, and they have to redeem themselves in this life, hopefully breaking the cycle of reincarnation. Indian Hindus of higher castes are loathe to help the lower castes in any way, as they believe by doing so they stop the lower caste person from redeeming themselves for the next life. This is not compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In a comparative religious course I had in college, the professor made this comparison:

Christianity has the view that we have a beginning, and the goal is to continue forward into eternity, while Buddhism has the view that we have no beginning, and the goal is to end our eternal existence, such as it is.

Mormonism has a little twist of both, with a view that we have no beginning and the goal is to continue forward into eternity.

Other than that, I studied Eastern religious fairly in depth many years ago, and at one point considered converting to Hinduism. The problem for me was, at the time I was an atheist, and the multiple divinities was something I just couldn't get past. The idea of the divine existing in all of us, rather than in a God of some kind, was appealing at the time, but it no longer is. I belong to Christ now, and need no other.

Peace.

I don't disagree with you at all. But I like to find truth in other religions, not emphasize our differences.