I was from a protestant reformer background. I think one of the biggest differences between the reformed evangelical and buddhism is that most Protestant denominations don’t emphasise much about the transcendence and the mystical aspect of God and spiritual life like the east. They are more ethical and rational based. The goal for them is not so much of an ontological transformation but an ethical transformation.
Ya i don’t think Charismatic emphasises the transcendence of God either. As a Charismatic Christian myself before, they emphasised on the personal and immanent aspect of God (i think that’s one of the reason why we see crying and getting very emotional.) which neglects the aspect of God that deserves our reverence. Well again, it’s hard to talk about protestatism as a whole because different denominations holds different beliefs and practices. But broadly speaking, they (traditional/conservative protestant movements) tend not talk about the notion of Deification as their ultimate God for they don’t distinguish the essence and energy of God.
there are issues with the presentation of Buddhism. The biggest is using the term “Buddhism”! Which Buddhism? At the very least we should specify which of the three turnings are being discussed as the goals of the first and the last two turnings are quite different. For example, sometimes you seem to be critiquing Theravada notions of nirvana(nibbana), but then you quote Mahayana passages. Buddhism is extremely broad and the differences between sub schools can be much farther apart than those between different Christian ideologies.
Honestly, it’s clear that anyone who suggests the uncreated light is the same as the light metaphors in Buddhism either knows very little about buddhism, or little about the uncreated light. Nowhere is the same type of experience we see with St. Symeon for example described in comprobable terms. The “light” in the theravada pali canon is almost entirely associated with knowledge (“light arose”=having an insight). It’s not a common feature of meditation methods in the canon, although there are a few mentions of light in this respect scattered throughout it. That being said, the Pali canon does repeatedly describe realizing of the unfabricated/asankhata which is uncreated. A famous passage from the udana (inspired utterances) describes nibbana as being without change, unconditioned, etc. So while there’s no light, it’s not correct to state that Theravada Buddhism doesn’t aim at realizing an uncreated reality. How we interpret that idea in Theravada depends though-some will argue for an almost “trivial” satisfaction of these terms. Nibbana is trivially uncreated because it is merely name for a cessation. Others will view nibbana a bit more cataphatically based on this passage. Regardless, nibbana is a so subtle that the arahant can’t even agree they will exist in it after death! There is no life in the usual sense in nibbana of theravada, and this is obviously quite different from orthodoxy.
Anyways, for Theravada at least there is no uncreated light talked about. If we go to say dzogchen, I’m less sure. There is an idea of luminosity/clarity gsal ba in dzogchen and much of mahayana. It’s not a literal light, but closer to the unfabricated clarity of one’s natural empty appearances. Definitely not the same idea, but some practices in dzogchen which rely on visionary experiences could result in lights. These are seen as empty appearances which are “naturally formed” (lhundrup). I’d lean towards saying the experience is still almost entirely different, and the doctrine of emptiness definitely colors how these visions are encountered. Emptiness is in no way compatible with God, even with St. Dionysius’s neoplatonic interpretation.
But that’s just two schools! Even within theravada there are any different ideas as well, and my perspective was more focused on “Early Buddhism” than modern. If we venture into Mahayana there are a trillion and one schools. Even if we could find some school claiming to see uncreated light, so what? It’s a fallacious argument from the start that just because someone claims a similar point or practice that the practice must be wrong.
Impressive detail there. Yeah I think these labels we put on spiritual traditions often don’t fit well. My beliefs, practices, and community life dont fit neatly into one denomination and I would expect that is the case for many people.
As a Protestant (kind of) I’m not even sure how one would define that.
Every single thing you get here is so misunderstood, i come from Buddhism practice and have read the Suttra. The perspective was lack of understanding in depth is doing no good and a complete waste of time. Buddhism doesn’t seek ending suffering meaning understanding suffering with depth that you understand it so much you overcome it and go beyond suffering, same with everything else. Buddhism practices mindfulness because it leads to such a depth in understanding that any physical can be detached. When there is no peaceful intention there is no peaceful dialogue.
Thank you my friend! Lutherans are from the Protestant Reformation, some of their comments I saw sparked me to do this article. Most Lutherans I’ve encountered are nice, like any group you have a few radicals who mischaracterize unfairly:
I was from a protestant reformer background. I think one of the biggest differences between the reformed evangelical and buddhism is that most Protestant denominations don’t emphasise much about the transcendence and the mystical aspect of God and spiritual life like the east. They are more ethical and rational based. The goal for them is not so much of an ontological transformation but an ethical transformation.
That’s a good point I agree, I rarely see any mystical aspect of God talked about in Protestant circles except maybe Charismatics.
Ya i don’t think Charismatic emphasises the transcendence of God either. As a Charismatic Christian myself before, they emphasised on the personal and immanent aspect of God (i think that’s one of the reason why we see crying and getting very emotional.) which neglects the aspect of God that deserves our reverence. Well again, it’s hard to talk about protestatism as a whole because different denominations holds different beliefs and practices. But broadly speaking, they (traditional/conservative protestant movements) tend not talk about the notion of Deification as their ultimate God for they don’t distinguish the essence and energy of God.
there are issues with the presentation of Buddhism. The biggest is using the term “Buddhism”! Which Buddhism? At the very least we should specify which of the three turnings are being discussed as the goals of the first and the last two turnings are quite different. For example, sometimes you seem to be critiquing Theravada notions of nirvana(nibbana), but then you quote Mahayana passages. Buddhism is extremely broad and the differences between sub schools can be much farther apart than those between different Christian ideologies.
Honestly, it’s clear that anyone who suggests the uncreated light is the same as the light metaphors in Buddhism either knows very little about buddhism, or little about the uncreated light. Nowhere is the same type of experience we see with St. Symeon for example described in comprobable terms. The “light” in the theravada pali canon is almost entirely associated with knowledge (“light arose”=having an insight). It’s not a common feature of meditation methods in the canon, although there are a few mentions of light in this respect scattered throughout it. That being said, the Pali canon does repeatedly describe realizing of the unfabricated/asankhata which is uncreated. A famous passage from the udana (inspired utterances) describes nibbana as being without change, unconditioned, etc. So while there’s no light, it’s not correct to state that Theravada Buddhism doesn’t aim at realizing an uncreated reality. How we interpret that idea in Theravada depends though-some will argue for an almost “trivial” satisfaction of these terms. Nibbana is trivially uncreated because it is merely name for a cessation. Others will view nibbana a bit more cataphatically based on this passage. Regardless, nibbana is a so subtle that the arahant can’t even agree they will exist in it after death! There is no life in the usual sense in nibbana of theravada, and this is obviously quite different from orthodoxy.
Anyways, for Theravada at least there is no uncreated light talked about. If we go to say dzogchen, I’m less sure. There is an idea of luminosity/clarity gsal ba in dzogchen and much of mahayana. It’s not a literal light, but closer to the unfabricated clarity of one’s natural empty appearances. Definitely not the same idea, but some practices in dzogchen which rely on visionary experiences could result in lights. These are seen as empty appearances which are “naturally formed” (lhundrup). I’d lean towards saying the experience is still almost entirely different, and the doctrine of emptiness definitely colors how these visions are encountered. Emptiness is in no way compatible with God, even with St. Dionysius’s neoplatonic interpretation.
But that’s just two schools! Even within theravada there are any different ideas as well, and my perspective was more focused on “Early Buddhism” than modern. If we venture into Mahayana there are a trillion and one schools. Even if we could find some school claiming to see uncreated light, so what? It’s a fallacious argument from the start that just because someone claims a similar point or practice that the practice must be wrong.
Impressive detail there. Yeah I think these labels we put on spiritual traditions often don’t fit well. My beliefs, practices, and community life dont fit neatly into one denomination and I would expect that is the case for many people.
As a Protestant (kind of) I’m not even sure how one would define that.
Every single thing you get here is so misunderstood, i come from Buddhism practice and have read the Suttra. The perspective was lack of understanding in depth is doing no good and a complete waste of time. Buddhism doesn’t seek ending suffering meaning understanding suffering with depth that you understand it so much you overcome it and go beyond suffering, same with everything else. Buddhism practices mindfulness because it leads to such a depth in understanding that any physical can be detached. When there is no peaceful intention there is no peaceful dialogue.
Thank you my friend! Lutherans are from the Protestant Reformation, some of their comments I saw sparked me to do this article. Most Lutherans I’ve encountered are nice, like any group you have a few radicals who mischaracterize unfairly: