One Superior Aspect from Buddhism to Christianism

Buddhism teaches acceptance of life, whereas christianity teaches rejection of life.

Perhaps this post-european culture can produce a post-european buddhist? An active monk, instead of a passive eastern monk?

:-k Buddhists have eternal life through reincarnation, yet their goal is to end the cycle of rebirth. How does that affirm life?

Pezer: “My life-is-sht is superior to your life-is-sht.”

The only rejection of life I know of is suicide. Everything else is choosing how to live best.

Active versus passive relative to what? For instance, I can actively resist going to war, while I can passively accept a military draft. Likewise, meditation is ideally a conscious activity (it’s hard for it not to be), while demonstrating against the war in Iraq can be a relatively unconscious activity.

exactly. As far as I know, their objective is to stop living. (they view life as an eternal cycle that needs to be broken).

Your really struggling in your post-Nietzschean, post-Christian search for values, aren’t you? I’m a Thomas Merton Christian, a catholic- he was very good friends with the Dalai Lama, and the catholic church holds meditation sessions with them at his old monastery in Kentucky where he is buried. I myself am quite knowledgeable in Zen and Nichiren practices.

You need to try this one again. Christianity isn’t divided upon any Nietzschean dichotomy, we ain’t got shit to do with his delusions. We came first, he died after. Not our problem.

Lot’s of exaggerated answers…

Buddhism asks the monk to let go of his “self” and become “one with life.” Christianity asks the priest to believe only in his “self” and to let go of “life.”

Perhaps the idea will be clearer to you if you replace the word “life” with the words “existence” or “reality.”

Or “the world.”

What is this self which he is asked to let go of? Buddhism says that the individual self is an illusion.

Who asked that? Where is it written? Do you have a reference?

Check this out: … s_of_Jesus

Good point! Jesus was in fact a buddhist, I agree.

However, it reveals a certain innocence to think that Christianity is the direct teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Think of this: A buddhist monk meditates, but a christian monk or priest prays. Please tell me you see the difference…

Buddhism is not the direct teachings of the Buddha. Both Christianity and Buddhism have been altered by the interpretations of generations of priests and monks.
Are you thinking of some specific distortion of Jesus’ teachings?

No, I don’t see the difference. Prayer is a form of meditation.

I thought so… It was nice talking to you anyways.

You’re not going to tell me the difference between prayer and meditation?
How about this?

You’ve got the research part down… All you need now is the critical thinking.

I made a serious point, it’s disappointing that you didn’t address it.

What is life? What is living? What is it that Buddhists deny, reject, or renounce?

My point is the opposite, that buddhist accept and embrace life. It is the christian monks that reject and deny life.

Life=existence=the world=reality. Living is the act of experiencing existence, the world, etc. A christian monk will see this as focusing on the imaginary world of the mundaine, they would much rather spend their time calling it a sin, a malicious mistake, and anxiously anticipating death, where an alternate reality/life/existence/etc. exists.

A buddhist monk, on the other hand, seeks to let go of the “self”, the soul, and rather give themselves entirely to this life, to become one with life/reality/you-get-the-point.

Look, the gods just finished their year end reports, filing everything away neatly in triplicate so I’m gonna slip in for a moment and lay down some truth on you:

The whole point of religion is that “this is not all we are”. That includes pretty much every sect possible, Buddhism included. You want a rejection of life? I’d argue that the only real Buddhists are cloistered and everybody else is merely a nominal lay Buddhist. A cloistered monk/nun represents a pretty clear rejection of “life”, indeed, that is a huge part of what monastic Buddhism is about! I’m not saying Christianity is better (it isn’t – indeed, it often makes harsher demands on its lay practitioners) but so what?

The whole thesis here is asine in the extreme.

How is that a rejection of life?

Neither am I, the point I am making here is not that one is better than the other (I had hoped that was obvious). The point is that Buddhism has a superior aspect, one concrete superior aspect. I am not making any overall statements.