Once I started studying zen buddhism and non dualism I developed a greater appreciation for Jesus as I was suddenly able to see through the distortions of the bible and see that he was enlightened the same as buddha, he just expressed the same concepts in his own way until the romans killed him and coopted his message to their own ends. This article did a great job of further breaking down that insight. Thanks for doing what you do, this blog is awesome.
Great article: I really appreciate the careful enunciation of shared essentials.
I do think there is a profound and important difference between Advaitic/Buddhist and Christian reality-approaches, though: A/B say (very roughly) that the True Self is the same as the Ground-of-Being (Ultimate Reality), whereas C says the True Self is *not* the Ultimate Ground - God-the-Farther is. In this latter view, to say 'I am That' (the Farther) is somewhat paradoxically the *origin* of separation from Truth - because it's not true!
Before I respond, I just want to emphasize: I’m just highlighting one *way* to look at Christianity, not trying to establish ‘the (W)right way’!
Anyhoo.
The issue comes down to whether non-separation is the same as identity. The term ‘oneness’ often implies *both* non-separation and same-identity.
But it’s possible for ‘things’ (especially formless things) to be non-separate but non-identical.
As a matter-based analogy (which is bound to fail at the limits, because it’s matter-based!): consider the physical spacetime inside a cup that’s filled with water. The space is everywhere non-separate from the water, but the water and the space are not identical.
Similarly, Christ-the-Sun in God-the-Farther need not imply identity, even though there is no separation. Taking the Trinity seriously somewhat implies distinct but non-separate identities
So much for the *conceptual* disambiguation: we could read the text either way.
The question is, when we contact the *actuality* of our Deepest Selves (e.g. in prayer or meditation): is there a Ground beyond our ‘largest’ authentic identities, that is nevertheless not-separate?
(Here ‘beyond’ does not mean ‘spatially further’: it means beyond the scope of what I can truly call ‘Self’. Returning to concepts, a God that *created* Christ and Souls can’t be identical to them in the usual sense but - another distinction between A/B and C reality-views, in terms of causality.)
Thanks again for raising this subtle but crucial point!
After experiencing such hate and judgement in Christianity, I used to feel the hair on the back of my neck stand up at the mention of the name, Jesus Christ.
At the age of 19 I attended a 1-yr nondenominational Bible Study program at Ecola Hall, in Cannon Beach, Oregon (population of 800 back then) and fell in Love with Jesus, I mean who wouldn’t in that environment. It was during the Jesus revolution in the 70s, the student body were all 18-23 years of age and it was a love fest for God. I was sent there by my Command Sgt. Major father, who was trying to save me from my hippie leanings (though never succeeded).
Then I had to return to the Church environment of theological conflict and duality. It all just felt like modern day Pharisees everywhere I went. Though my personal relationship with the Christ never changed, I wanted nothing to do with the religion bearing His name.
Oddly I spent a number of years learning about other religions, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paramahansa Yogananda’s Self Realization, and some of the multitude sects of Christianity (there are over 30,000 I believe; didn’t study them all).
Several years later I was mother to 16 yr old son who converted to Islam after reading the autobiography of Malcolm X, at the worst time— right after the World Trade Center bombings!! I quickly learned as much as I could and several times visited his Community in Oakland, CA, where I then learned the connection between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It made religion even more ridiculous to me. How could they all have come from the same root and been so completely intolerant of one another?!
Everything I was taught seemed so bogus and full of unnecessary bullshit, I chose the Esalen Path (having studied there as well) which they aptly called the Religion of No Religion. The Esalen Institute in Big Sur, CA was where East met West in unified acceptance of faith and healing practices. When asked what I meant by that I would simply state, “By being the religion of no religion I can be the religion of all religions.”
One Love, one e Heart, as Bob Marley beautifully referred to it. Love is the only religion I practice! Oddly enough it was two Buddhist teachers who brought me back to the love of Jesus, Thich Nhat Hahn with his book, “Living Buddha, Living Christ”, and Adyashanti’s, “Resurrecting Jesus.”
I find it such folly that humans spend so much time debating their faiths, as if one will ever prove itself superior to the others. Putting God, the Creator of all life, in any kind of structured belief system is laughable. What freedom and peace there is in simply Being in Awe and Mystical Wonder about the nature of God and the glory all around us.
I really appreciate your beautifully detailed summation of Being the Love all these wisdom prophets, gurus etc, have embodied as peace, acceptance, and compassion as a unified oneness.
For the so called smartest mammal in creation, we humans can be so boneheaded.
I choose to live Heart Forward in the Religion of no religion— in the love of Jesus and all the other Lovers and living wonders of God’s Grace and Mercy.
Thank you for sharing the way you do. Happy to have stumbled into your Bar!
Once, in a dream, a Wise Woman said to me, "Tell me only the Truth."
I said nothing.
At the time, I was undergoing a certain degree of enlightenment. Both Buddha and Christ were involved. I tried to explain to a friend that the Second Coming was actually an awakening of all mankind; a spiritual Critical Mass Event. It doesn't seem any more immanent, alas.
You write, "Jesus never caused anyone to be saved and the Buddha never caused anyone to be enlightened. They both said they had a solution to a problem and the problem was suffering. They both said this suffering stemmed from separation."
It seems useful to reflect on the source of the PERCEIVED separation.
We are made of thought. And thought operates by a process of conceptual division. And so we experience reality as a collection of things, with "me" being one of those things. The concept of "things" implies separation.
Religion is the attempt to reunite with reality, to heal the perceived division. Regrettably, religions often attempt to heal the division through the medium of thought (doctrines etc) the very thing causing the experience of division. This process can be compared to an alcoholic trying to escape their addiction through a case of scotch.
This explains why we never quite get to where we're trying to go. We need thought to survive, it's not optional. And so we're continually drawn back in to the illusion of separation that thought generates.
I've recently become interested in a Substack which expresses much of what you've written above in another way. If you haven't seen it already, check out Coming Home, a project about near death experiences.
Great article, thank you. I'm actually interested in Buddhism lately, I might convert after I study it well in the future for better pursuing spirituality. Another great book is The Book of secrets by Osho where he compares different different religions and mystics, in there he says that the Christian afterlife and the Buddhist reincarnation are devices for the same purpose of pushing people of that time and place to take action because Jesus preached to poor people that needed something better to look for while Buddha teached to rich people that already had done everything in life, were bored and couldn't bare to repeat the same life.
Thank you for this beautiful post. Paul Knitter was my mentor in seminary (Union in New York) and taught me so much about mutual understanding. He walked both paths fully..as a Buddhist and as a Christian. What a heart for people and for each of our spiritual paths.
Great! Raised a Christian and became a Buddhist back in the 70s, took vows in 80s ?? Excellent exposition of the truth in both! Kinda where I am now. I have a blog Shunyata’s Apprentice, tho no one reads it!
Mari’s Borg’s book of The Parallel Sayings is a book I have and value greatly. Everyone should get a copy and read it. Borg only made one minor mistake. He lists the Jesus saying first and then the Buddha saying. It should be the other way around as Buddha lived 500 years before Jesus.
I really struggle to understand this- what is this “ultimate reality”? I don’t mean to sound flippant but does that mean embracing “life sucks then you die”? I’ve tried to read about Buddhism and I really get stuck on the “people choose suffering”- are some people just completely ok with bad things happening in their life? I don’t understand how someone can experience something negative and NOT suffer- even if they avoid using the word the experience is the same- a bad thing happened and the person experiencing it will always carry the experience of damage.
There is a bias arising from the need to label everything as “bad” or “good” - in fact, most things just are. For example, if a person experiences pain as suffering, Buddhism doesn’t label that as bad. It merely teaches that there is a choice. Try it out with something relatively easy, like being stuck in traffic. Are you going to get angry and miserable over something you can’t change? Or are you going to crank up your favorite music and have a private dance party during some free time that just forced its way into your day? Either way, I can relate. However, when I remember I have a choice, personally I prefer the latter.
When something painful happens to us, we experience it. When we think that it shouldn’t be happening to us, that is suffering— in the Buddha’s understanding of it.
In Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation this same passage is:
It seems that we are actually impermanent, though we thought
ourselves permanent; it seems that we are actually transient, though
we thought ourselves everlasting; it seems that we are actually noneternal, though we thought ourselves eternal. Seems that Buddha rejected all concepts of immortality
Once I started studying zen buddhism and non dualism I developed a greater appreciation for Jesus as I was suddenly able to see through the distortions of the bible and see that he was enlightened the same as buddha, he just expressed the same concepts in his own way until the romans killed him and coopted his message to their own ends. This article did a great job of further breaking down that insight. Thanks for doing what you do, this blog is awesome.
Great article: I really appreciate the careful enunciation of shared essentials.
I do think there is a profound and important difference between Advaitic/Buddhist and Christian reality-approaches, though: A/B say (very roughly) that the True Self is the same as the Ground-of-Being (Ultimate Reality), whereas C says the True Self is *not* the Ultimate Ground - God-the-Farther is. In this latter view, to say 'I am That' (the Farther) is somewhat paradoxically the *origin* of separation from Truth - because it's not true!
John 14: 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.
Or in other words, we are all one. How does this mean that the true self is not the ultimate ground of being? It seems that this is what he has said.
Hey Jamie :)
Great point!
Before I respond, I just want to emphasize: I’m just highlighting one *way* to look at Christianity, not trying to establish ‘the (W)right way’!
Anyhoo.
The issue comes down to whether non-separation is the same as identity. The term ‘oneness’ often implies *both* non-separation and same-identity.
But it’s possible for ‘things’ (especially formless things) to be non-separate but non-identical.
As a matter-based analogy (which is bound to fail at the limits, because it’s matter-based!): consider the physical spacetime inside a cup that’s filled with water. The space is everywhere non-separate from the water, but the water and the space are not identical.
Similarly, Christ-the-Sun in God-the-Farther need not imply identity, even though there is no separation. Taking the Trinity seriously somewhat implies distinct but non-separate identities
So much for the *conceptual* disambiguation: we could read the text either way.
The question is, when we contact the *actuality* of our Deepest Selves (e.g. in prayer or meditation): is there a Ground beyond our ‘largest’ authentic identities, that is nevertheless not-separate?
(Here ‘beyond’ does not mean ‘spatially further’: it means beyond the scope of what I can truly call ‘Self’. Returning to concepts, a God that *created* Christ and Souls can’t be identical to them in the usual sense but - another distinction between A/B and C reality-views, in terms of causality.)
Thanks again for raising this subtle but crucial point!
It’s essentially the difference between pantheism and panentheism.
After experiencing such hate and judgement in Christianity, I used to feel the hair on the back of my neck stand up at the mention of the name, Jesus Christ.
At the age of 19 I attended a 1-yr nondenominational Bible Study program at Ecola Hall, in Cannon Beach, Oregon (population of 800 back then) and fell in Love with Jesus, I mean who wouldn’t in that environment. It was during the Jesus revolution in the 70s, the student body were all 18-23 years of age and it was a love fest for God. I was sent there by my Command Sgt. Major father, who was trying to save me from my hippie leanings (though never succeeded).
Then I had to return to the Church environment of theological conflict and duality. It all just felt like modern day Pharisees everywhere I went. Though my personal relationship with the Christ never changed, I wanted nothing to do with the religion bearing His name.
Oddly I spent a number of years learning about other religions, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paramahansa Yogananda’s Self Realization, and some of the multitude sects of Christianity (there are over 30,000 I believe; didn’t study them all).
Several years later I was mother to 16 yr old son who converted to Islam after reading the autobiography of Malcolm X, at the worst time— right after the World Trade Center bombings!! I quickly learned as much as I could and several times visited his Community in Oakland, CA, where I then learned the connection between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. It made religion even more ridiculous to me. How could they all have come from the same root and been so completely intolerant of one another?!
Everything I was taught seemed so bogus and full of unnecessary bullshit, I chose the Esalen Path (having studied there as well) which they aptly called the Religion of No Religion. The Esalen Institute in Big Sur, CA was where East met West in unified acceptance of faith and healing practices. When asked what I meant by that I would simply state, “By being the religion of no religion I can be the religion of all religions.”
One Love, one e Heart, as Bob Marley beautifully referred to it. Love is the only religion I practice! Oddly enough it was two Buddhist teachers who brought me back to the love of Jesus, Thich Nhat Hahn with his book, “Living Buddha, Living Christ”, and Adyashanti’s, “Resurrecting Jesus.”
I find it such folly that humans spend so much time debating their faiths, as if one will ever prove itself superior to the others. Putting God, the Creator of all life, in any kind of structured belief system is laughable. What freedom and peace there is in simply Being in Awe and Mystical Wonder about the nature of God and the glory all around us.
I really appreciate your beautifully detailed summation of Being the Love all these wisdom prophets, gurus etc, have embodied as peace, acceptance, and compassion as a unified oneness.
For the so called smartest mammal in creation, we humans can be so boneheaded.
I choose to live Heart Forward in the Religion of no religion— in the love of Jesus and all the other Lovers and living wonders of God’s Grace and Mercy.
Thank you for sharing the way you do. Happy to have stumbled into your Bar!
Great knock-knock!
Once, in a dream, a Wise Woman said to me, "Tell me only the Truth."
I said nothing.
At the time, I was undergoing a certain degree of enlightenment. Both Buddha and Christ were involved. I tried to explain to a friend that the Second Coming was actually an awakening of all mankind; a spiritual Critical Mass Event. It doesn't seem any more immanent, alas.
You write, "Jesus never caused anyone to be saved and the Buddha never caused anyone to be enlightened. They both said they had a solution to a problem and the problem was suffering. They both said this suffering stemmed from separation."
It seems useful to reflect on the source of the PERCEIVED separation.
We are made of thought. And thought operates by a process of conceptual division. And so we experience reality as a collection of things, with "me" being one of those things. The concept of "things" implies separation.
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/article-series-the-nature-of-thought
Religion is the attempt to reunite with reality, to heal the perceived division. Regrettably, religions often attempt to heal the division through the medium of thought (doctrines etc) the very thing causing the experience of division. This process can be compared to an alcoholic trying to escape their addiction through a case of scotch.
This explains why we never quite get to where we're trying to go. We need thought to survive, it's not optional. And so we're continually drawn back in to the illusion of separation that thought generates.
I've recently become interested in a Substack which expresses much of what you've written above in another way. If you haven't seen it already, check out Coming Home, a project about near death experiences.
https://cominghomechannel.substack.com/
Great article, thank you. I'm actually interested in Buddhism lately, I might convert after I study it well in the future for better pursuing spirituality. Another great book is The Book of secrets by Osho where he compares different different religions and mystics, in there he says that the Christian afterlife and the Buddhist reincarnation are devices for the same purpose of pushing people of that time and place to take action because Jesus preached to poor people that needed something better to look for while Buddha teached to rich people that already had done everything in life, were bored and couldn't bare to repeat the same life.
Thank you for this beautiful post. Paul Knitter was my mentor in seminary (Union in New York) and taught me so much about mutual understanding. He walked both paths fully..as a Buddhist and as a Christian. What a heart for people and for each of our spiritual paths.
Great! Raised a Christian and became a Buddhist back in the 70s, took vows in 80s ?? Excellent exposition of the truth in both! Kinda where I am now. I have a blog Shunyata’s Apprentice, tho no one reads it!
I was surprised you didn’t mention Christian Zen guy Thomas Merton. His writings helped me when I thought I had to come back to Christianity.
Mari’s Borg’s book of The Parallel Sayings is a book I have and value greatly. Everyone should get a copy and read it. Borg only made one minor mistake. He lists the Jesus saying first and then the Buddha saying. It should be the other way around as Buddha lived 500 years before Jesus.
I really struggle to understand this- what is this “ultimate reality”? I don’t mean to sound flippant but does that mean embracing “life sucks then you die”? I’ve tried to read about Buddhism and I really get stuck on the “people choose suffering”- are some people just completely ok with bad things happening in their life? I don’t understand how someone can experience something negative and NOT suffer- even if they avoid using the word the experience is the same- a bad thing happened and the person experiencing it will always carry the experience of damage.
There is a bias arising from the need to label everything as “bad” or “good” - in fact, most things just are. For example, if a person experiences pain as suffering, Buddhism doesn’t label that as bad. It merely teaches that there is a choice. Try it out with something relatively easy, like being stuck in traffic. Are you going to get angry and miserable over something you can’t change? Or are you going to crank up your favorite music and have a private dance party during some free time that just forced its way into your day? Either way, I can relate. However, when I remember I have a choice, personally I prefer the latter.
When something painful happens to us, we experience it. When we think that it shouldn’t be happening to us, that is suffering— in the Buddha’s understanding of it.
From the Sīha Sutta (Discourse on the Lion).
In Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation this same passage is:
It seems that we are actually impermanent, though we thought
ourselves permanent; it seems that we are actually transient, though
we thought ourselves everlasting; it seems that we are actually noneternal, though we thought ourselves eternal. Seems that Buddha rejected all concepts of immortality
♥️