Marty,

Thanks for the links I will look into those, and I look forward to hearing your story.

It is good to see activity in this forum, again. There is much I would like to coment on, but I will have to do that later after I have ruminated on it a bit. I would like to add this:

In classic Hinduism, out of which Buddhism developed, Brahman is the Godhead and Atman is the divine within each human. The Atman is Brahmna and the Brahman is Atman.
What gets reincarnated is only the Atman, not the soul. The reincarnation of the soul developed much later, by some accounts, not until the British raj in the 19th century.

George

I promised to post my conversion story - or what I call my journey to Orthodox Christianity. Below is a high level synopsis of what “triggered” my conversion. I’ll fill in more details if anyone is interested.

I will always be grateful to Buddhism, especially Mahayana Buddhism, for being a vital stopping point on my journey to truth. Through the liturgy of the Pure Land or Shin Buddhist school I learned about the concept of Nembutsu - trusting in “the Name that calls.” Simply stated the Shin school of Buddhism - ("Shin" means true, or Orthodox, in Japanese) teaches that enlightenment or salvation is purely a gift, provided on the merits of the Source of Infinite Life and Light (Amitabha), and by practicing Shinjin, or “True Entrusting” in this “Other Power” one becomes now and forever a citizen of the eternal Pure Land.

When I was introduced to Orthodox Christianity I thought that it had copied the Buddhist teachings - after all, I thought, Buddha had appeared on earth 500 years before Christ. But as I did research I found that Mahayana Buddhism had not really developed its teachings until around the 8th Century C.E. and as I studied Eastern Orthodox Christian teachings I had several “Deja-Vu” experiences. For example, the Mahayana philosophy teaches that the Buddha, or Awakened One, has several bodies, or aspects of existence - the underlying essence being the Dharmakaya body (defined as timeless, permanent, devoid of characteristics and free from duality. The spiritual body of the buddhas.) I compared this to the “Apopathic” teachings of the Orthodox Church on the “nature” of God. God is one in essence and absolutely unknowable - God is, according to Orthodoxy, above all nature; not a being because He is above all beings.

Whoa, the unknowable essence - the Dharmakaya sounds like a description of that!!!

As I study more and more about Orthodox Christianity - the church of Pentecost - I find that its truth contains all truth that other religions point to - yet it fulfills them all because Lord Jesus Christ is the source of all life and light “the light that enlightens the whole world” - John 1:9.

If anyone is interested in other aspects of my journey - please see my blog http://lifeingrace.blogspot.com/ and feel free to post questions here on the discussion board....

Peace

Marty

Christ is risen!

Marty,

“Classical Theists” have trouble escaping from dualism since they seem required to posit two substances--"spirit" and “matter”. I see in this a similar issue to that which plagued the Fathers and necessitated the Councils. That is, the use of human reason to apprehend the Divine.

The Fathers always ended in appealing to “mystery” by means of apophatic process. Unfortunately Augustine didn’t follow this path and instead, believed that God could be understood by the mind if not comprehended, by which he meant that God could not be seen in His completeness all at once.  Classical Theism cannot end anywhere else but dualism it seems to me because the mystery of how the Divine can be omnipresent and maintain His separateness, completely immanent and also completely transcendent cannot be grasped without reference to two substances. Augustine even referred to God as Divine “substance”. 

I’m reading a great book about the divergence of east and west currently and the whole issue of the Divine “Energies” as understood by the respective sides is key. You can get the book from Eighth Day (David Bradshaw--Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom--highly recommended and a challenge to read!)

These issues point to the differences between Orthodox and Protestantism also since most are heirs of Augustine in way or another. 

I have also had discussions with Classical Theists about this and more often than not they simply stop discussing after a short while. My students at Carson Newman resonate to panentheism easily once they have explored the issues.

That God is beyond us is comforting to me.

I have read some Buddhist writings by Thich Nhat Hahn and a few others. I appreciate the convergence of ideas.

Neal

Welcome Prometheus!

Glad to have you in the thread! There is so much to dialogue about in this thread.

Christ is risen!

Neal

Well, I wanted to become involved in this discussion for two reasons.  One, is that you’ve brought up Buddhist principles and related them to Orthodox principles. An interest of mine.  Second, I’m a licensed professional counselor and author of a self-help book (Don’t Let Your Emotions Run Your Life).  I’m very interested in connecting with other mental health pros who are also Orthodox.

So, I have no contribution at the moment, just this introduction.  I hope that’s OK.

Scott

I think that this is a very good paraphrase of that idea.  I really like what you and Neal are discussing here.

Stacy - 08 May 2006 01:52 PM

Dcn Neal,



A friend of mine read a quote to me this weekend during our kayak trip wherein C.S. Lewis is quoted as having said that those who adhere most firmly to the truth of the their individual religions often have more in common with one another than two from the same religion but of opposite commitment levels (I’m sure I did it disjustice in the paraphrasing, but you get my point).  We also discussed some writings by Fr. Thomas Hopko wherein he writes that many believe that certain writings written by St. Damascene (I think that’s who it was) wherein he references another saint are referring to the Buddha.  I’ll check with him for more exact sources but someone else may know more about it.

Hmmm… that’s really interesting about the Hindu and the panel discussion.  You’re a psychologist?  I’m a former MFT (now I teach). 

Any new thoughts/discoveries?

Marty,

Thanks for sharing this information. 

I have an interest in the Eastern religions and I believe it’s for thier spiritual practices and emphasis on compassion, mindfulness, and so on.  Praise God for the Orthodox church.

Marty - 22 February 2007 11:21 AM

I promised to post my conversion story - or what I call my journey to Orthodox Christianity. Below is a high level synopsis of what “triggered” my conversion. I’ll fill in more details if anyone is interested.

I will always be grateful to Buddhism, especially Mahayana Buddhism, for being a vital stopping point on my journey to truth. Through the liturgy of the Pure Land or Shin Buddhist school I learned about the concept of Nembutsu - trusting in “the Name that calls.” Simply stated the Shin school of Buddhism - ("Shin" means true, or Orthodox, in Japanese) teaches that enlightenment or salvation is purely a gift, provided on the merits of the Source of Infinite Life and Light (Amitabha), and by practicing Shinjin, or “True Entrusting” in this “Other Power” one becomes now and forever a citizen of the eternal Pure Land.

When I was introduced to Orthodox Christianity I thought that it had copied the Buddhist teachings - after all, I thought, Buddha had appeared on earth 500 years before Christ. But as I did research I found that Mahayana Buddhism had not really developed its teachings until around the 8th Century C.E. and as I studied Eastern Orthodox Christian teachings I had several “Deja-Vu” experiences. For example, the Mahayana philosophy teaches that the Buddha, or Awakened One, has several bodies, or aspects of existence - the underlying essence being the Dharmakaya body (defined as timeless, permanent, devoid of characteristics and free from duality. The spiritual body of the buddhas.) I compared this to the “Apopathic” teachings of the Orthodox Church on the “nature” of God. God is one in essence and absolutely unknowable - God is, according to Orthodoxy, above all nature; not a being because He is above all beings.

Whoa, the unknowable essence - the Dharmakaya sounds like a description of that!!!

As I study more and more about Orthodox Christianity - the church of Pentecost - I find that its truth contains all truth that other religions point to - yet it fulfills them all because Lord Jesus Christ is the source of all life and light “the light that enlightens the whole world” - John 1:9.

If anyone is interested in other aspects of my journey - please see my blog http://lifeingrace.blogspot.com/ and feel free to post questions here on the discussion board....

Peace

Marty

It has been a long time since anything was posted on this forum. I have been thinking more about something that I posted a while back and the expansion of the idea may shed some light on Stacy’s original query about the similarities between Buddhist Nothingness and the Passionless state in Orthodox mistical theology. It is long, so, please, bear with me.

THE POINT OF EXISTENCE AND BEYOND

For some thing to exist in space and time, it must have three attributes or properties:
dimension,
duration, and
location.

No thing exists in space and time if it does not have all three.

The most precise means of denoting location is the mathematical point.
The mathematical point, by definition has no dimension and no duration.
It, also, has no location. It is location.
Therfore, the mathematical point does not exist in space and time.

Every thing in space and time is dependent, for its existence on its point of location, which is not in space and time. Therefore, every thing in space and time is dependent, for its existence on that which is outside of space and time.

That which is outside of space and time exists, otherwise there would be not point of existence in space and time.
That which is outside of space and time has, like the point of location, no dimension and no duration.
A thing has by definition has dimension and duration. That which has no dimension and no duration is no thing.

Therefore, there is no thing, nothing outside of space and time. There is existence, being, but no thing.
That which is beyond space and time is nothingness filled with being.

What is beyond space and time is dimensionless and durationless. Infinity and eternity are, by definition, dimensionless and durationless. Nothing else is dimensionless and durationless but infinity and eternity.
Infinity and eternity are not the endless continuation of space and time. Even if time and space do continue infinitely and eternally, and there is no way to prove that they do, they still have dimension and duration, be it infinite dimension and eternal duration. Infinity and eternity are dimensionless and durationless. Where we find dimensionlessness and durationlessness is outside of space and time at the point of location.
What is beyond space and time is infinity and eternity.

Every thing in space and time is, therefore, dependent on infinity and eternity, filled with being, for its existence.

George