CONTROVERSY:
THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION ON BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY
(With prominent
professors, Dr, M Th, M Ts, BARE, M Div, and others students in my school on
what I theologize on Buddhism and Christianity as noted in the following short
passage.)
I have rarely seen Christian in the
realm of Christianity; instead I have seen the authentic Christian in the realm
of Buddhism.
Where are righteousness, Justice,
love, compassion, mutual respect and understanding? Please don't pretend in
all!
Anthony B. LianThang
Dong Hwan Kwon: because we do not seek ... we are afraid ... we do not
depend on the power of Holy Spirit. I don't think we need to become Buddhist or
anything else. We follow JESUS ... Only JESUS. I want to see you all in the
chapel to pray ... Jesus will make us what we want.
Anderson Godoy’s: Sorry Anthony but I
certainly disagree! Those who want to be holy and CHRISTlike, should follow
Christ example. Not Buddha's or anyone else's.
My friend the very moment that we
point at others to judge their spirituality we should be extremely careful
about ours (Matthew 7:3). Unity in the bound of love, and telling each other
the truth in love we may have some hope, but accusing each other and trying to
establish who is holier, we will go nowhere. Just my humble opinion here.
Ko
cin: When a person lives in a manner
consistent with God's divine will,
that
person is in a state of being holy and that person is living a life of
holiness.
Hebrew 12: 14.
For this reason,we can be
"righteous" before God, IF WE ..Obey God's will and utilize them all
in US, Not OTHERS
Love,
Justice and Mutual respect are the Characters of "WE"
For
Example: When we respect other people, they will respect us that’s “Mutual
respect" Reaping what we sow: (
Gal 6:7-8)/ This is my reflection: Grade C-.
Loreto Aguiguin: may i join your
conversation...according to my readings and observation it is not just buddhist
but also Roman Catholic, Mormons etc..who are showing "holiness" in
their way of life..they (Buddhist) will go to a solitary place, quietly
meditating, helping the needy, they live simple life, wear simple clothing, the
RC will kneel down to pray, recite the Lord's prayer for hundred times, doing
good to their neighbors...mormons are persistent in going house to house for
BIble study..they also do some community service...from these readings and
observation...we can say in general or common definition of "living a holy
life..." but holiness in wesleyan view is different...Holiness Class under
Dr. FC.
Anthony B. LianThang: For those who
interest this, I willingly recommend you reading book "Media
Crucifixion," is in library.
Girish Bokare: How you define
Buddhist holiness in light of recent killings of Muslims in Myanmar? I know
there is something to learn from every religion. But we should not forget that
what drives one to be holy, is it deeds or is it someone higher who has set an
example for holy living. He is non other than Jesus Christ: http://christianaudio.com/the-lotus-and-the-cross-jesus-talks-with-buddha-ravi-zacharias
Try to get this copy and read its good one.
Anthony B. LianThang: My theological reflection on holiness is to kill and to
love everyone! Just open our mind, not exclusive in our belief and don't make a
boundary for Christian and your belief! Sometime killing is better than love
and sometimes love is much better than killing.
Stella Girish Bokare: Jesus is the perfect author of Holiness and this truth is
inevitable no matter what or who tries to defy. Being the true followers of
Christ, we must define our standards of Holiness in the light of our identity
in Christ and not in Buddha.
Girish Bokare: I believe killing
is not love it is selfishness. How can a selfish person live holy life?
Anthony B. LianThang: Killing does not
only mean Physical but also Spiritual, if it is selfishness, God is a selfish
God! The son of God, Jesus himself prefers to die in killing by HIs people. If
He was not killed, may not be salvation looking with the perspective of
Christianity, When Peter did not allow Jesus to be killed, what Jesus said to
him is "Satan,". Seeing especially in the Old Testament!
Dick Eugenio: just this: i don't
need Buddha to be Christlike. Christ is my all in all. I love Jesus Christ, my
Saviour and my Lord, and if I am crucified with him for having him ALONE in my
heart and mind, I'd consider it a privilege. If I follow Christ, I follow
Christ through himself, not through a third party like Buddha or Muhammad
Anthony B. LianThang: This is my
recommendation and wishing you to read: Zylstra, Sarah Eekhoff. Source:
Christianity Today, 52 no 9 S 2008, p 20. I just recommend you to reading this
article “Salvation through Buddhism?
EXCIUSMSÎ view of Christianity might
not be so rare. Many Christian leaders lamented the results of a Pew Forum on
Religion & Public Life survey from June, which revealed that 57 percent of
those affiliated with evangeli-cal churches agree with the statement that many
religions can lead to eternal life. But that number may not be as alarming as
it first appears, said Terry Mattingly, editor of media blog GetReligion. Many
survey respon- dents, he said, may not have distinguished between religion and
denomination. "It's one thing for evangelicals to say they believe
salvation can be found through religions such as Catholicism, Lutheranism, and
so on," Mattingly said. "It is something else to say that salvation
can be found through the religions of Buddhism, Hin- duism, Islam, and
Wicca."
Wiiy become a missionary to the U.
S.? The United States is home to an estimated 221 million unchurched people,
including people from every other nation of the world. Missionaries to the U.S.
have a great opportunity for global influence. By living according to God's
Word, we leave an impression of God's love on everyone we meet. AMF
missionaries make a big impression, but we still have many people to meet.
Won't you join us in reaching unchurched Americans? To learn more, visit us
online or call 610.527.4439.
American Missionary FELLOWSHIP
Specifying "religions other than
Chris- tianity" to narrow the question would have likely produced
different results, said Ed Stetzer, director of LifeWay Research. The Southern
Baptist polling group recently asked Protestants who attended church at least
once a month: "How much do you agree/disagree: If a person is sincerely
seek- ing God, he/she can obtain eternal life through religions other than
Christianity." Eight out of 10 people who indicated they held evangelical
beliefs disagreed with the statement. Just 31 percent of all Protestant
churchgoers agreed, but another 28 percent said they neither agreed nor
disagreed. Add those numbers up, and 59 percent of Protestant churchgoers
aren't taking an exclusivist view of Christianity, said Greg Smith, research
fellow at the Pew Forum. "I don't think [Pew's numbers] are way off the
mark here," he said. Even so, Smith said the definition of reli- gion is
something Pew wants to explore with more detail later on. "There are two
ideas we'd like to get at," he said. "What do you mean by religion?
Which ones do you think can lead to eternal life? And second, what's behind
this? Is it a case of people not knowing or agreeing with the teachings of
their own faith? Or is it peo- ple, even highly religious people, expressing
reticence about judging others?" Previous polling has shown that Ameri-
can Christians believe specific other religions do not have a lot in common
with their own faith. A 2007 Pew Forum poll found that 83 percent of
evangelicals view Islam as very different from their own religion, and 57 per-
cent have an unfavorable view of Muslims. Still, conservative Protestant
culture in the United States is becoming more tolerant and less definite, said
Christian Smith, professor of sociology at the University of Notre Dame. There
are different reasons why Christians would say devout followers of another
reli- gion could gain eternal life, he said. "One of them is just a flabby
inclusiveness, thinking that everything is equally as good as the next
thing." He suggested some evangelicals share C. S. Lewis's sense that
salvation maybe pos- sible for non-Christians after death. "There are a
range of ways in which people could be thoughtful and theological about
it," Smith said. "But my suspicion is that most people are not
thoughtful about it." www.americanmissionary.org/ct. Sarah Eekhof
Zylstra.
Dick Eugenio: but a survey done
in north america is not representative of the convictions evangelicals have in
asia, africa, latin America.
Johnrey Bonus: Wow, im amazed to
you Anthony B.
LianThang, you did well. Your proposal is very tempting to respond.
However, I hope everyone could think a deeper sense of faith after all. God
bless you all.
Bless-Dia Dagasen: Brother Anthony, I
appreciate your openness to share your reflection to the community of faith. I
think you’ve shared it to the right place. I always believe that
knowledge/reflection and the purification of it is intersubjective/relational.
This is a bit long, but I hope you’ll bear with me. Please note also that I do
not mean here to attack you, but just trying, in my own opinion, to show
possible flaw in your claim. Your post is rather challenging especially that it
touches the nerve of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I’m puzzled how
you arrived at your statement: “Those who want to be holy and Christlikeness or
radical Christian must be first Buddhist,then they will become the radical
Christian and followers of Jesus.”
You seem to be equivocating your
terms. e.g. “holy and Christlikeness” and “Buddhist”. You are concluding from two
mutually exclusive ideas here: Christianity and Buddhism. I think this violate
a very important fundamental law of logic: the Law of non-contradiction. This
law of logic simply says that contradictory statements/truth-claims cannot be
both true in the same sense at the same time. Are Buddhism and Christianity
fundamentally the same? I don’t I think so. The fact that Buddhism and
Christianity claim exclusivity cannot be both true in any sense at the same
time.
You also tend to imply that because
Christianity and Buddhism have something in common that they are the same. But
I certainly do not concur. In fact, it seems to me also that your statement
violates another fundamental law of logic, the Law of Excluded Middle, which
says that for any statement/truth-claim, either that statement/truth-claim is
true or false. Put it another way ‘just because two things have one thing in
common does not mean they have everything in common.’ So, we may see ‘love’
expressed in Buddhism, in Christianity (and even in other religions), but we’ve
to bear in mind that each of them claims exclusivity. And as they may be
superficially the same, as Ravi Zacharias pointed out, they are fundamentally
different. I think then that true Christlikeness is only found in Christ Jesus.
Dick Eugenio: well-expressed
classmate bless - this is why i think my batch was the best.
Janary Suyat: I am deeply disturbed by what you have shared Anthony B. LianThang. We
have to be careful to make such claims. Remember, HOLINESS is not because of
what we "do" but because of what The Triune God has done in us. God,
being merciful and selfless gave His son Jesus to die for us. So that in His
precious blood we would be made righteous. He has provided for us all that we
need to be Holy, His prevenient grace at work in us, and His sanctifying grace.
It is HIM. And He has given us His Holy Spirit. The same spirit at work in
Christ so that we may be able to LOVE, and OBEY the Father. In our faith in
Jesus and our intimate relationship with God, we become
HOLY...
I don't know exactly how to include
BUDDHA in this equation. While Buddhism has "some good teaching"
again, it doesn't provide what we need to be holy, and that was what I said, HOLINESS
is made possible through what Jesus has done for us and the benefits of His
atonement. Like kuya Dick said: JESUS IS MY ALL IN ALL.
I hope you won't feel attacked here,
but as how I have been deeply troubled by your claims, let us help each other
find the TRUTH IN JESUS. Let our eyes be fixed on HIM, NOT ON PEOPLE, we
Christians, all of us need God's grace to be Holy and so we are on this journey
to follow our upward call. This is good that you have shared it here so we can
help each other.
Anthony B. LianThang: All professors and co-students on my post concerning Holiness
and radical Christian, I do say thank you very-very much for sharing the spirit
of your perspective and belief. As you are the most potential and excellent
thinker in Christian community, I am sure that you are expecting not only by
Christians but also by myriad people. Making boundary in your community and
limiting your though and knowledge in Christianity is not good enough in post
modern era, I am especially inviting you to take the era of colony in future
ministry for attracting others to be yours. What is your maturing of Holiness
and radical Christian? I am absolutely sure that the perfect Holiness and
radical Christian is perfect in the great commandment of Jesus (Enlightened
one) “ Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second
is like it: love your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the Prophets hang
on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40 and other Bible passages. Jesus
boldly said all laws consisted in these both commandments. What is your? This
is for your salvation.
The being of Christianity is fully
perfect in it. Let see that we can find all these in Buddhism or
not.
“Buddha (Enlightened One) mainly taught two things that are Four Noble Truths
and the Eightfold Path. Then, Four Noble Truths is consisting and
fulfilling in the Eightfold Path. So that let take concentrate on what Buddha
boldly said also:
The
first step on that path is Right views: Your must accept the Four Noble Truths
and the Eightfold Path.
The second step is Right Resolve: You must renounce the pleasure of the senses;
you must harbor no ill will toward anyone and the harm no living creature.
The third step is Right Speech: Do not lie; do not slander or abuse anyone. Do
not indulge in idle talk.
The fourth is Right Behavior: Do not destroy any living creature; take only
what is given to you; do not commit any unlawful sexual act.
The fifth is Right Occupation: You must earn your livelihood in a way that will
harm no on.
The sixth is Right Effort: You must resolve and strive heroically to prevent
any evil qualities from arising in you and to abandon any evil qualities that
you may posses. Strive to acquire good qualities and encourage those you do
possess to grow, increase, and be perfected.
The seventh is Right Contemplation: BE observant, strenuous, alert,
contemplative, and free of desire and of sorrow.
The Eighth is Right Meditation: When you have abandoned all sensuous pleasures,
all evil qualities, both joy and sorrow, you must then enter the four degrees
of meditation, which are produced by concentration.”
It is not a great difficulty relating to between the Jesus of the Gospels and
Buddhism:
Jesus (Enlightened One) and Buddha (Enlightened One).
“Both taught self-denial as the path to peace. Compare Mark 8:34-37 and its
parallel passages with the Four Noble Truths.
Both Jesus and Buddha identified with the poor and needy. Compare Jesus’s
inaugural sermon in Luke 4:18-19 with Buddha’s first sermon at Benares, which
spelled out the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path that resulted from his
contact with the poor and needy.
Both target the need for rebirth. Compare John 3:5-6 with the message of
reincarnation in Buddhism.
Both speak of the need for enlightenment. “ Buddha” means “Enlightened One,”
compares that with the apostle John’s presentation of Jesus as the light (John
8:12).
If we, Christians are delighted and blissed enough only in the realm of
Christianity, you will never reach to further. I do assert that for Christian,
the spirit of “Theocentric” is much-much better than “Christocentric.”
Christian is the excellence in all as well as the rest of Christianity, (other
Religions).
Where did you put law? Jesus never broke the law while living his short life on
Earth. Please do not commit any unlawful sexual act. Then, tell me what is your
unlawful, here I am confusing?”
From C Marvin Pate and Sheryl L.
Pate, “Crucified In The Media: Finding the Real Jesus Amidst Today’s
Headlines!” 2005.
See relating to our Topic: Buddhism
and Christianity http://anthonyblianthang.blogspot.com/2012/11/dialogue-theravada-buddhism-and.html/, DIALOGUE:
THERAVADA BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY
Dick Eugenio: Jesus is not
"Enlightened One." Jesus is not an Apollinarian mere human being who
at one point in his life received the divine Logos. Jesus is the Light himself.
consider a twin: Roy and Rey. They are similar in many ways: in character, in
fashion style, in hairstyle, in likes and dislikes, etc. But they are still
ontologically different from one another. Hence to love one does not
necessarily involve loving the other. Roy would like to be loved as Roy and not
through Rey, and Rey would like to be loved as Rey and not through Roy.
consider a Hindu and a Christian making one same statement: "Be nice to
animals." although both uttered the same words, what they mean may be
different from each other, as each has his own presupposition and agenda. For
the Hindu, "be nice to animals" can mean "be nice to your dead
ancestor." for the Christian, "be nice to animals" means
"be a steward of God's creation." so again, similar statement but two
different meanings.. in the same way, the similarity between the teachings of
Buddha and Christ are only at the superficial level. penetrate deeper into the
meanings, presuppositions and agenda of these statements and you will see how
they are actually irreconcilable.
Janary Suyat: While you put the
similarities between Jesus and Buddha, and maybe there are some similarities...
I want to put the difference: Jesus, died for me; He took my place. Buddha did
not and cannot offer me any of the peace that can only come from Jesus. Oh how
I love Him so! Moreover Anthony B.
LianThang, If you are so knowledgeable about Buddhism, you
should know that Buddhism doesn't recognize a "God," rather, they
consider that the very concept of God is a distraction in the road to
enlightenment. How will you reconcile this to the light of the God of
Christianity who reveals himself in a personal way and longs for an intimate
relationship with His creatures?
Seonmok Paul Park: I appreciate your
sharing Anthony B.
LianThang. In Korea, some rich churches and rich pastors are
criticized by Buddhists, even some Roman Catholics. And many general Koreans prefer
Roman Catholics and Buddhists, lastly Protestants among main three religions in
Korea, because many Protestants are not living in Holiness by God's grace since
others is showing their goodness Because we Christians in Korea are not living
as the children of God, that Churches are struggling each other, there is no
united, and no compassion to the poor (but making buildings). We are not
Christians in Korea (not like how Antioch community was called) But, Jesus
Christ is not Buddha, in my research as you know, Alexandre de Rhodes (Phan,
Peter C. <Mission and Catechesis: Alexandre de Rhodes and Inculturation in
Seventeenth-Century Vietnam>. New York: Orbis Books, 1998.), Buddhism
teaches two condemned errors: the first, which he calls the “external way,” promotes
the worship of idols, and the second, which is worse and which he calls the
“internal way,” teaches atheism, that is, the teaching that “nothingness is the
origin of all things, and that at death all things return to nothingness as to
their ultimate end.” I admire Buddhists monks practices (I am doing one of my
papers in World Christianity 2, I will present on March, about mission strategy
for Buddhists). But, I confessed I will follow Jesus Christ who is the perfect
human and the Son of God. What do you want to say? Anthony B. LianThang.
Karen Mooney Courtney: If we watch other Christians, we will no doubt be
disappointed, disillusioned, and left unsatisfied. When other Christians fail,
the solution is not to jump ship, but to keep our eyes on Jesus, the author and
finisher of our faith! The solution is to pray that we and our fellow brothers/sisters
become holy, as He is holy. Paul said, "Follow me as I follow
Christ." 1 Cor. 11:1 When another Christian's actions are not Christ like,
we must remember that it is not them that we follow, but ultimately CHRIST. He
will never fail.
Loreto Aguiguin: bro Anthony B. LianThang may i
have a very common and simple question to you..does Buddha raise from the dead?
do you know where is he now? how about Jesus; did Jesus raise from the dead? do
you also know where is he now?
Anthony B. LianThang: Professor and
co-students, I do discern how much you love Jesus Christ who gave his whole
life for all not only you and me but also for all creatures. All your questions
are very interesting to me, then, it seems that they all are only based on
faith alone, no action or good deed. If seeing all with only the perspective of
Christianity, your statements are very true. As knowing that there are many
different ways of noticing concerning for getting eternal life, however, I am
so sure that you have already known that there is only “ultimate reality.” For
example, from here, Rizal, when you wanna go to Manila, you already know that
there are so many roads to get to Manila, so that if one road is so trafficking
and then you can choose another one to get Manila, then you can get there. In
fact, we must know that there are various statements, beliefs, perspectives and
etc for getting eternal life, but as noted there is only one “ultimate reality,”
it does not matter how much myriad various beliefs, concepts and statements
because I am very sure that all of them are seeking the only one “ultimate
reality” to confess. What all discussions above are about for only one that is
for eternal life after death of physical body. Without action and good deed,
faith alone cannot please the will of God. The bible teaches us discerningly,
“Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will
say, you have faith; I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will
show you my faith by what I do.” James2:17-18. In Buddhism, good deed and
action is the mist as well as Christianity and the life of Jesus who himself
offered his life for us, which is the model of good deeds and action. Without
the real good deed or action of Jesus, there may be no salvation. Faith and
action could not be separated. They are rather going together. Let use the
Buddha term, “kamma,” meaning is good deed or action. Let’s take time attention
what Buddhists interpret the Bible verses from the Gospel of John and Matthew.
Here I am sure that after reading the following article that is my wishing
recommendation to you:
“John 6:68; ".. .thou hast the
words of eternal life}''The main point that Buddhadâsa stresses in connection
with this verse is that in order to receive eternal life, a life of practice in
accordance with Jesus' teaching is the decisive factor. It is not possible to
gain eternal life 21through faith alone. His argument goes as follows: The
concept "eternal life" has to be understood and interpreted as Dhamma
language. This means that ultimately it concerns the question of truth, and as
a consequence it cannot be understood by faith alone. Buddhadâsa supports his
argument by using Peter as an example. Even though Peter was an uneducated man,
his wisdom is demonstrated by the fact that he renounced his former meaningless
life and chose a different way. It was this wisdom that enabled 22 him to
understand eternal life. “Matt 21:21: "...if only you have faith and
have no doubts...you need only to say to this mountain, 'be liftedfrom your
place and hurled into the sea, and what you say will be done."Matt 17:20:
"...ifyou havefaith no bigger than a mustard-seed, you will say to this
mountain, 'movefrom here to there ', and it will move; nothing willprove
impossiblefor you." Buddhadâsa uses these passages to argue for the
following: "What is generally known as faith, does in fact imply a
concentrated mind which results from activity with clear comprehension and
earnest aspirations for something higher." And he therefore concludes that
a religion based on this teaching is not a religion of faith, but rather
"a system of action to be practised with the 23highest wisdom concerning
God." His argument in relation to these Gospel passages is based on the
understanding that the word "mountain" must be 24 interpreted as
Dhamma language, meaning "selfishness". The meaning of "moving
mountains" is thus to "get rid of selfishness". Faith must then
be interpreted accordingly, as that which makes it possible to free oneself of
selfishness, namely a concentrated mind, not blind faith or a faith believing25
just because some authority instructs one to do so.
Matt 6:14-15: "For if you
forgive other (sic) the wrongs they have done, your heavenly Father will
alsoforgive you... " The point that Buddhadâsa stresses concerning these
verses is similar to his argument above. He states that in order to attain
emancipation, faith and prayer are not sufficient. The main idea in these
verses is namely that action (forgive others) is essential in order to be free
from wrong. One's own action comes first; God, or kamma, must then respond
accordingly. Matt 6:33: "Set your mind on God's kingdom and his justice
before everything else, and all the rest will come to you as well. "The
stress in this verse, according to Buddhadâsa, is on kamma or action on its
highest level, which is characterised by complete cessation of suffering. His
argument, goes as follows: On the surface it may look as if this verse says
that faith is needed first, and that everything then will come to you; but
interpreted in the Buddhist way, as Dhamma language, the meaning is different.
In Dhamma language to "set your mind on God's kingdom" means to be free
of all attachments and to give all things back to27 God or Dhamma. The result
is freedom and no suffering.
Matt 7:2: "...and whatever
measure you deal out to others will be dealtback to you."This verse
expresses the law of kamma, according to Buddhadâsa. Also here does the
two-language theory plays an important role in his interpretation. Buddhadâsa
argues that there is someone who deals "back to you", and this
someone has to be understood according to the language 2% of Dhamma as God,
interpreted as the law oí kamma. To sum up the main point made by Buddhadâsa in
his discussion of Christianity as a religion oí kamma, we note that he stresses
the following points: First he argues that none of the verses speak of faith,
in the sense of blind acceptance, but either of faith as understanding based on
actions, or as action itself. Faith as blind acceptance is thus an
interpretation in terms of Everyday language, while in Dhamma language faith
corresponds to an understanding based on action {kamma) or action itself. Secondly
Buddhadâsa makes the point that in the verses discussed, God has the same role
as the law of kamma; this supports his understanding that, in the language of
Dhamma, God and the law of kamma are the same thing, or reflect the same
reality. Finally, he finds in one of the texts a stress on action on such a
high level that it leads to enlightenment, which corresponds to kamma on its
highest level”.
“Matt 13:23: "But the seed that
fall (sic) into good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it, who
accordingly bears fruit, and yields a hundredfold, it may be, sixtyfold or
thirtyfold. "
Matt 13:20-21 : '''The seed sown on
rocky ground standsfor the man who on hearing the word, accepts it at once
withjoy; but as it strikes no root in him he has no staying-power, and when
there is trouble orpersecution on account of the word hefalls away at
once." Buddhadâsa's argues that the main point expressed in these two
passages is that Jesus wants followers that have wisdom rather than faith. That
is followers who understand the message they hear, and do not just believe it,
without 30understanding. The way Buddhadâsa argues for this point is as
follows: He takes as his point of departure the sentence in verse 23
"...who hears the word and understands..." and rephrases the meaning
from a Buddhist perspective: "Jesus wants a follower who understands the
word he hears and 31not just believes what he hears". He is obviously
interpreting this out of a presupposition that there is a contrast between
understanding and believing. Furthermore he argues that verses 20-21 give the
reason why Jesus wants such kind of followers. That is because the ones who
understand stay firm, but the ones who just believe are easily uprooted from,
or shaken in, their belief. We then see that these verses are interpreted on
the basis of the same 32 contrast between believing and understanding as in
verse 23.
Matt 7:4-5: "...or how can you
say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye\ when all the time
there is that plank in your own? You hypocrite. First take the plank out of
your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out ofyour
brother 's." Also when commenting on this verse Buddhadâsa argues that
Jesus stresses wisdom rather than faith. Buddhadâsa compares this verse to two
verses in Dhammapada (Attavagga 2-3) and interprets the Gospel passage through
the Dhammapada text. This text stresses that an instructor should "be
established in the virtues in which one is going to instruct others",
which33means that the instructor must instruct himself first. In light of the
comparison, Buddhadâsa concludes that the removal of the plank in Jesus'
parable involves wisdom rather than faith.
Matt 13:20-21 : '''The seed sown on rocky
ground standsfor the man who on hearing the word, accepts it at once withjoy;
but as it strikes no root in him he has no staying-power, and when there is
trouble orpersecution on account of the word hefalls away at once."
Buddhadâsa's argues that the main point expressed in these two passages is that
Jesus wants followers that have wisdom rather than faith. That is followers who
understand the message they hear, and do not just believe it,
without30understanding. The way Buddhadâsa argues for this point is as follows:
He takes as his point of departure the sentence in verse 23 "...who hears
the word and understands..." and rephrases the meaning from a Buddhist
perspective: "Jesus wants a follower who understands the word he hears and
31not just believes what he hears". He is obviously interpreting this out
of a presupposition that there is a contrast between understanding and
believing. Furthermore he argues that verses 20-21 give the reason why Jesus
wants such kind of followers. That is because the ones who understand stay
firm, but the ones who just believe are easily uprooted from, or shaken in,
their belief. We then see that these verses are interpreted on the basis of the
same 32 contrast between believing and understanding as in verse 23.
Matt 7:4-5: "...or how can you
say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye\ when all the time
there is that plank in your own? You hypocrite. First take the plank out of
your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out ofyour brother
's."Also when commenting on this verse Buddhadâsa argues that Jesus
stresses wisdom rather than faith. Buddhadâsa compares this verse to two verses
in Dhammapada (Attavagga 2-3) and interprets the Gospel passage through the
Dhammapada text. This text stresses that an instructor should "be
established in the virtues in which one is going to instruct others",
which 33means that the instructor must instruct himself first. In light of the
comparison, Buddhadâsa concludes that the removal of the plank in Jesus'
parable involves wisdom rather than faith. Based on his biblical reading,
Buddhadâsa therefore concludes that Christianity like Buddhism is a religion of
wisdom and kamma: "In the New Testament there are many points in agreement
with Buddhism or the Tripipaka which account for the Buddhist attitude towards
Christianity; namely that the latter is a religion ofaction and ofself help
based on wisdom, 37 and not a religion based on mere faith as is generally
understood."
Reference: Haug, Kari Storstein. "Did Jesus teach about wisdom
and Kamma? A critical analysis of a Buddhist Bible interpretation."
Svensk Missionstidskrift 94, no. 1 (January 1, 2006): 55-79. ATLA Religion
Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed February 4, 2013).
Seonmok Paul Park: So... Anthony B.
LianThang, I want to know.. Are you trying to say Buddha is Jesus
for Buddhists? Or what... Jesus is one of Saviors, isn't he? What is your point,
brother? I think you are supporting interpretations of Buddhists to the message
of Jesus Christ, aren't you?
And, I have not confessed Jesus Christ for not
only after my physical life but also today. I say confession as what He has
done for us. So... I think you are not talking about salvation. You are talking
about Buddhist practice for oneself. I just confuse who you are because you
don't seem to agree with the Christian Doctrine. I think you are similar to one
of Buddhists. I just want to know who you are, my brother. I just want to talk
to you and know you more…
Anderson Godoy’s: Anthony, this
conversation is certainly turning to be very long and not as productive as it
could have been. I do not even know if what I am about to write will help you at
all but please take this as just another honest contribution from myself, and
as one task that I think is due from me to the students as Academic Chairman of
the SBO. You criticize us because we make our arguments based on faith and not
on deeds. But, you ignore the fact that for us Christians those two elements
are deeply related and co-exist with one another. Moreover, if we would need to
trace a hierarchical relationship, we would say that it is our faith that leads
us to good deeds, and not the opposite. Be minded too that Christians are aware
of the credibility gap that exists between the ideals of our faith and the
daily practice of it in many of us. But for us this gap is not an opportunity
to discard our faith as false, or to judge the faith of others calling them
“unlawful.” Rather, the gap is a reminder of our total depravity and the
complete dependence we are to have on God’s grace. In other words, our failures
in practice as Christians do not disregard the veracity of the demands of our
faith for a better moral life. We pursue holiness and believe it can be
achieved, and even when in practice it is not achieved this turns out to be an
opportunity for (1) God’s grace to work on us, (2) believers to willingly
surrender ourselves to God’s authority through repentance and, (3) the
community of faith to engage in redemptive relationships that encourage one
another to pursue the same ideals that were trespassed, (and many other
elements). Theoretically, you are advocating for a dialogue between Christianity
and Buddhism. Nevertheless, in practice you are not allowing that dialogue to
happen for you are demanding that we Christians compromise the very foundations
of our faith even before any attempt to seek for a common ground with Buddhist
people. You invite us to talk but you are quick to tell us that we “should be
Buddhist first” if we want to be “radical followers of Jesus.” You want us to
see the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity but most of what you
have done is to tell us that the mere precepts of our faith are “not good
enough in post modern era” and that our practice is worse than that of Buddhist
people. The requisites you give us in order to engage in this pseudo-dialogue
imply that we should be willing to compromise the very core of our faith for
the sake of pursuing knowledge and dilute in Buddhism without causing any
opposition. Otherwise how do you explain statements like: “If we, Christians
are delighted and blissed enough only in the realm of Christianity, you will
never reach to further [sic];” and even clearer: “I do assert that for
Christian, the spirit of ‘Theocentric’ is much-much better than
‘Christocentric’ [sic].” Are you suggesting that we Christians give up Jesus
our LORD and SAVIOR so that we can pursue a nebulous platonic deity which you
identify as the “ultimate reality?” If it is so, I can clearly tell you that
there is no possibility of further dialogue. Does saying so make me an
intolerant, fanatic, closed-minded and old-fashioned person? Maybe… but not
more than the Apostle Paul. 6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting
the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a
different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are
throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the
one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already
said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than
what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! 10 Am I now trying to win the
approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were
still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ GALATIANS 1:
6-10 (Check twice verse 10). In the many responses to this post people like
pastor Girish,
prof. Dick, pastor Loreto, kuya Bless-Dia, Janary and Seonmok Paul have
presented sound arguments and asked very specific questions. Besides pastor
Girish’s you have not addressed any of these questions in your posts and
instead you keep on presenting more and more polarized postures between
Christianity and the syncretic amalgam that you want to make out of Buddhism
and Christianity (Buddhstianity?). You may be thinking that your thought is
groundbreaking and paradigm-breaker. In all honesty I want to tell you that that
is not the case. At the core, your position is a well known, and extremely old
ideology called "universalism" (Just look it up in Wikipedia). Your
argument about the different ways to arrive to a certain place may make sense
LOGICALLY, but it is not congruent with the nature of the Christian FAITH. For
Christians salvation is gracefully bestowed through Christ and Christ alone
(See 1 Timothy 2:5), in this sense Christianity is dogmatic and the dogma
precedes even the intervention of human leaders, it is God who establishes it
and it is the column of the Christian faith. I do not know if you are aware of
this Anthony but the only way in which you can put religions in a melting pot
and avoid the awkwardness of a serious real dialogue is by compromising all of the
principles of those religions and distorting their precepts so that at the end
the only thing to exist is a deformed entity of relativism; a syncretic
creature that offers no standard, hope or salvation; a distorted space in which
everything is true and false at the same time. That, my friend, is where you
will end up unless you take the task of dialogue with a little more seriousness
and objectivity. As Academic Chairman of the Student Body Council I offer you
the chance to discuss this in a more formal setting. Maybe we could schedule a
forum where moderated presentations and subsequent conversations will warrant
that we will all be benefited and we will be able to offer to the community
much more than personal opinions supported by extensive “copy-paste” of
selected articles that biasedly fit our perception. If you are interested,
please let me know.
Aralini Fabarosi: Just finished an important paper
that reminded me of these exchanges. From a social science student's
perspective, I just want to thank you Anthony B. LianThang for
this question--for allowing us to examine the depth of our collective acquired
wisdom on this issue, also for allowing the school to improve what we need to
know. We will sure encounter the same question outside the seminary. However,
this question will remain unanswered until your dissonance has been reduced.
Thank God for our community of believers who are willing to help you with your
"post-dissonance reassurance." I trust that your question is just
like a buyer's remorse. From wiki, "Buyer's remorse is the sense of regret
after having made a purchase. It is frequently associated with the purchase of
an expensive item such as a car or house. It may stem from fear of making the
wrong choice, guilt over extravagance, or a suspicion of having been overly
influenced by the seller. Buyer's remorse is thought to stem from cognitive
dissonance, specifically post-decision dissonance, that arises when a person
must make a difficult decision, such as a heavily invested purchase between two
similarly appealing alternatives." My hope is that this remorse will be
addressed soon with the help of our theologians and MDiv students as suggested
by Ánderson Godoy S. I hope
that APNTS will be the place for you to be reassured that you indeed accepted
the best car, as I was reassured with these exchanges that APNTS has the best
footnoters. We are the Turabians!· By the way Anthony B. LianThang, I
acknowledge that some manufacturers of cars mash up different parts. However,
the manufacturer of the best car does not recommend us to put parts from other
cars-- this clause is stated in the owner's manual (the Bible).
Anthony B. LianThang: Brother Seomok Seonmok Paul Park, here is
my earnest answer that I am not the one who is trying to make Christianity
become Buddhism and saying Jesus is Buddha. However, I am sure that I am the
one who give the huge mutual understanding to other faiths not only Buddhism
but also the rest religions. Christian is Christian and Buddhist is Buddhist in
which there is totally needed mutual understanding and mutual value and
respects with each other. You may think I am not look like Christian. Of
course, I may not be in your mind, but it does not matter to me because I am
the one who prefer to be believer than Christian. Do you know what is the
meaning of Christian and believer? Christian cannot be saved without faith,
Christian, meaning to say, Christian is just the follower of Jesus and meaning
to say Believer is those who have faith in Jesus. I am really sure that as I do
love Jesus and Christian so much, other faiths, they do love their gods like
Buddha so much too. In fact, I am the one who is trying to give mutual
understanding to them. Once again, I am not the one who neglect and reject
Christian, its beliefs and doctrine and Jesus but I am the one who can
understand other faiths who and what they are as who I am.
Brother, Ánderson Godoy S, I do
appreciate you for your agreement on Theocentric much more than Christocentric.
Here is simple answer for you that I am not the one who is suggesting you all to
reject Jesus, your savour and Lord, So too, I am not asserting you to attract
your opinion but I am the one who is informing you that as you love your
religion and Jesus, just give your huge understanding, value and respect to
other religions. As you are Academic Chairman of SBO, you are dutiful in your
place. In academic, without reference and resources, what you are saying may
not be much effective so that when I notice some statement, I just bring some
recommendation to you all for reading to discern where my paper or opinion come
from. Christian is the best and excellent for Christian you and me as well as
Buddhist and others religions are also the best and excellent for them so that
this is my suggestion that don't abhor other faiths and as we are educated
people and students of Master, we should not say that there is nothing but
Christian. Love your neighbours as yourselves! Open the big door for all from
different place, culture, belief, perspective and etc and different people to
yous. I am so sure that no one will come unless open your door. Do not you
offer your love and mutual respect and understanding to other
faiths?
Anderson Godoy’s: Anthony, seriously speaking I think we have a broken
communication issue here. I belief this is mainly due to the use of a language
(English) that is not our native one.
1) I did not agree on "theocentric" over "Christocentric."
The opposite, I personally believe and think that every Christian should be
Christocentric. There is no Christianity without Christ.
2) No one here has expressed hate or disdain to Buddhist or people of other
religions (no one here seems to "abhor" others, except you and your
judgmental attitude toward Christians' "unlawful" practices)
3) You are right that an academic statement should be well supported by
references. However, what you have done until now is way far from that. Copying
and pasting lengthy excerpts from articles from EBSCOHost thinking that such
act automatically gives authority to your argument is not only irresponsible
but also it shows the superficiality of your research. Moreover, you cannot
just discard LOGIC in your pursue for academic knowledge. Your whole argument
is full of incongruences, fatal internal contradictions and it will be unable
to convince anyone with a basic knowledge of Christian or Buddhist traditions.
4) I am sorry if I am harsh here, but though I do not doubt your intentions and
good heart for Buddhists around the world, I already said this approach should
not demand the apostasy of our faith in order to have "dialogue". Do
we hate Buddhist? Not at all. Do we want to learn from them? Yes. Do we need to
say that Jesus is the same as Buddha in order to pursue this inter-religious
exchange? NOT AT ALL. As a matter of fact, your attempt to say that
Christianity and Buddhism seek one and the same thing and that Christ is not
different from Buddha, is a lack of respect to the traditions and rich cultural
background of both religions.
5) Enriching dialogue and "open doors" can only happen the moment
that we first understand our own identity as what are the traits that shape
such identity in us. The moment you lose an understanding of your own self any
contribution you could make to others is lost too.
Anthony, your intentions are good and serious, but good intentions are
fruitless without an equally good and serious methodology. Since I know you
enjoy quotes, let me share an excerpt from one person who, like you wants to
build bridges among Buddhists and Christians:
"Having enjoyed such rapport with those who embrace the Buddhist
worldview, I found it difficult to highlight the deep differences between
Buddhism and Christianity and not bring offense. Those differences may be
discomforting, but they are real. Even the answers the monks gave to my
questions were not always the same depending on which school of Buddhism they
represented. At times there was frustration on their faces when the questions
became tough and their answers dissimilar. But even in the midst of
disagreements, they drew comfort from the fact that, for them, agreement was
not as important as the pursuit itself." (The Lotus and The Flower, Ravi
Zacharias, Introduction)
Please in your open-mindness, take some time to read that short book and work
some more in the foundations to carry on with your dialogue. Without that, this
very Facebook thread will prove useless as we will just go in circles pointing
out irreconcilable things in a language that we do not even speak as
confidently as our native tongue.
My offer is still up for you, we could plan an official activity as the kind of
inter-religious dialogue you propose may be very enriching for the community at
APNTS.
Dick Eugenio: something on interreligious dialogue will be wholesome..
but first, perhaps the first meeting should define what dialogue means.
Anthony B. LianThang: The root word of
dialogue comes from two Greek combined in one word; dia and logos; dia means
two or through and logos means word, or meaning.[1]This root word, dialogue, is
used as conversation and discussion in the dictionary. Dialogue is also a
conversation, a conversation in written form, a discussion. It is also between
representatives of two groups, (Revised & Updated Illustrated Oxford
Dictionary 2007, 223). The researcher prefers these two statements: Leonard
Swidler mentioned in his article, What is Dialogue: “Dialogue is a two-way communication
between persons who hold significantly differing views on a subject, with the
purpose of learning more truth about the subject from the other.”[2] Thich Nhat
Hant who is a rare combination of a mystic, a scholar, and an activist, a
Vietnamese monk, and one of the most beloved Buddhist teachers in the West
mentioned: In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. We have to
appreciate that truth can be received from outside of-not only within-our own
group. If we do not believe that, entering into dialogue would be a waste of
time.[3]
It is said that we have to broadly
allow what is good, beautiful, and meaningful in the other’s tradition to
transform us. We have to first accept our selves, the conflicting elements that
are within us. If we have peace within us, we can have real dialogue with
others. Reference: [1] Introduction to Dialogue, available from
http://courses.umass.edu/plnt397s/Introtodialogue.htm, accessed at February 20, 2012. See the root word of
dialogue in Latin and why does dialogue need, what is dialogue, dialogue is
conversation and discussion, what true dialogue and how dialogue important is
at here; http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/skh/hall/chungchi1955.htm,
accessed at February 20, 2012. The dictionary meaning of Dialogue; Della
Summers and Penny Stock, eds., Longman Dictionary of English Language and
Culture ( England: Longman House, 1992), 350. [2] Leonard Swidler, What is
Dialogue , available from: Institute.jesdialogue.org/fileadmin/
Bizcourse/Dialogue.pdf, accessed at 8 Fabruary 2012. [3] Thich Nhat Hanh,
Living Buddha, Living Christ (New York: Riverhead Books, 1995), 9-10. See the
brief History of Hanh, He is a rare combination of mystic, scholar, activist,
Vietnamese monk, is one of the most beloved Buddhist teachers in the west. He
was a poet, Zen Master, and chairman of the Vietnamese Buddhist Peace Delegation
during the Vietnam War. He was nominated by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for
the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the author of more than thirty books, including
Anger and No Death, NO fear.
4 Ibid, 10, this research paper does
not focus on about dialogue however the researcher’s own country and people did
not know and understand clearly what dialogue is. Hopefully if it is known and
understood clearly the meaning of dialogue, it will be very-very meaningful and
helpful for his countrymen. Dialogue is crucial to understand. In modern times,
many fundamental or conservative Christians extremely oppose the term
“dialogue,” but actually the term dialogue and Christianity cannot be
separated, it is always a counterpart. Dialogue is a special conversation among
people with different points of view on issues of mutual concern or between two
persons or between one religion and the other religion, for example Buddhism
and Christianity. Semantically, dialogue is to have a conversation, discussion
or negotiation with others. However, today we mean something quite definite;
namely, a two-way communication between persons. One-way lecturing or speaking
is obviously not meant when we speak of dialogue between religions or
ideologies. When we say two-way communication, we clearly
know that there are many different
kinds of two-way communication: e.g., fighting, wrangling, debating, etc. It is
clear that none of these are meant by dialogue. The one who is extreme on
his/her own side and will not allow different kinds of thinking is the term of
dialogue. Many Christians think that dialogue is to call them to be Christian
and to tell the good news or the doctrine of Christianity. This is especially
true when they have dialogue with another religion, especially Buddhism. This
is absolutely missing the goal or focus of a dialogue between Buddhism and
Christianity. If our intention is for them to become Christian when we dialogue
with Buddhists, this is the worst type of dialogue. It is an assumption in
dialogue that neither side has a total grasp of the truth of the subject, but
that both need to seek further. When we have dialogue with another religion, we
must have mutual trust between the partners. This can be established and
developed. Clearly without mutual trust, there will be no dialogue. This means
to say that each partner must come to the dialogue with total sincerity and
honesty. If we have doubt of our partner in dialogue, our dialogue may seem
waste of our time. The primary purpose of dialogue is to learn something from
our partner. Properly, we come to the dialogue as a Buddhist, as a Christian,
as a Muslim, etc., with sincerity, honesty and integrity. Without trust in the
partner in dialogue there will be no dialogue. The main goal of dialogue is
that both partners will not tell our beliefs and doctrines of our own religion,
but to come to the conversation to discuss one thing. It is rather to have a
correct understanding of dialogue, which is a two-way communication so that
both partners can learn from each other, and change accordingly. The author
wants to say deeply in conclusion that Dialogue is seeking the truth and an
open mutual understanding of each other, not doing evangelism and wanting them
to become a Christian. The one reason is that true dialogue bears fruits.
(Swidler, what is dialogue) and (Hanh 1995, 9-10)Introduction to
Dialogue.
Brother Ánderson Godoy S, You are
look so serious, I might be misunderstanding your commend, which may be my
in-careful reading on your commend, I just pick up this phrase: “I do assert
that for Christian, the spirit of ‘Theocentric’ is much-much better than
‘Christocentric’ [sic].” Thank you for your recommend Book for reading and as
you, I would like to recommend you to read this book and you will know what I
am saying " Ecumenical REsources For Dialogue," 2004, Ed. by Samuel
Ngun Ling, resources from WCC.
Anderson Godoy’s: Anthony... those are not my words, I was just quoting you
Anyways, you [hopefully] got my point, I'm off this conversation.
Anthony B. LianThang: So sorry brother for that because I did not see where you
got that quote! God bless and thanks’ million for sharing your opinion, You are
a good student and looking forward to see you as an excellent student and
professor in future. I hope you can be!
What you said that you copy and paste
is true because I already mention in my previous commend and the passage that
our discussion based on so that I did not tell anything more but instead I
recommend you to read these articles to discern what I am talking and saying.
Then, believe that you will know why I am asserting in this way after you read
what my recommend reading books and articles. As we are a theological student,
we must give where we get that information so in my reply commend, you will see
where I get my information and sources. I give all references to all that is my
academic life. God bless and extend our mind to be broadened.
Anderson Godoy’s: Thank you Anthony,
hopefully your inquisitive mind will bring good contributions to the church,
just make sure to establish right foundations, then the fruit of your work will
avoid extremes and will be a blessing for many. Ko Cin: "The words of Ánderson are ended."
Anthony B. LianThang: Glad to say that I am so pleased
for having this kind of huge discussion with the prominent Professors, Dr., M
Th, M Ts , BARE, M Div, and others students. I am discerned that can be called
great argument with each other, will provide us to think the Word of God deeper
and deeper and evaluate how Christian is running on in the post modern era.
Brother Anderson, what you are talking and saying is my pleasure to hold an
academic discussion in our seminary. If having this kind of discussion among
students, as we are not a normal students already, I am really sure that will
bring us to the position of the excellent students and to be the effective
leaders in our future ministry. I am really exciting to have an academic
discussion in our school and looking forward to see that will be held soon.
Repeat again, bliss to all who involve in this ecumenical discussion that is my
theological reflection on Buddhism (the rest religions) and Christianity. What
I am asserting is to evaluate and reflection the life Christian today and that
the students and Christians will have mutual respect, love, understanding and
belief on other faiths. This mutual understanding between Christian and other
faiths will bring the gracious peace on earth or to all nations.
(Note: This short and huge argument between Anthony B. LianThang and his
excellent professor and students is based on Buddhism and Christianity. What I
am trying to assert something is that Christian should be authentic and radical
Christian and is to reflect on how the life, activities and movement of
Christianity are going on. I am bravely asserting that is no pretend in your
faith, beliefs and yourselves. Christian must be Christian, no others.)
By
Anthony B. LianThang
No comments:
Post a Comment