If you'd like a copy of my four-page lecture outline on "Jesus and Buddha," let me know and I will send it to you. This is the lecture I am slated to give Feb. 25 in Boulder, Colorado.
1. My review from The Christian Research Journal of Hanh's book, Living Buddha, Living Christ, is here.
2. My article, "Jesus and Buddha: Two Masters or One?" from The Christian Research Journal is here.
Dr. Groothuis, I would appreciate the outline very much! yossman@mac.com
ReplyDeleteThank you.
Dr. Groothuis, I was attending Riverside Baptist while you were guest teaching there, and had the chance to hear you at the ID debate you participated in (last year?). I was excited to learn that you'd be lecturing closer to home and recruited my entire Monday night small group to come. Would you be so kind as to send the outline so I may make copies for us? lbirkeland@gmail.com Many thanks! - Laura
ReplyDeleteI would like to see the outline. Please e-mail jcubsdadATmsnDOTcom.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Good critique/review of Hanh's book. Thanks, Doug!
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that if the Buddhist metaphysic is true, then it supports the connections Hanh is making repeatedly throughout the book. That is, if all material and immaterial objects or subjects are essentially one substantial reality (hard monism), then it's not a far leap to look for similarities between two things and assert identical realities, e.g., the kingdom of God and nirvana, a mustard seed and enlightenment, etc. Of course, even if there were similarities between the Christian and Buddhist world views, that does not logically entail that they are the same at their core. Similarity is not sameness. (Incidentally, this is one of many of the fatal flaws of Darwinian evolution as popularly taught). Sadly, most (dare I say Western?) Christians are so intellectually naive that they are not able to smell the philosophical "rat" here.
World view confusion is rooted in and results from one's metaphysical presuppositions. While tolerance and peace are desirable goals/outcomes from every religious corner of the universe, we simply cannot have them at the expense of compromising a responsible Christian metaphysic. And so, unmasking (a word from the past you're familiar with no doubt) the assumptions that uphold a faulty line of reasoning is the primary apologetic task and your critique does a stellar job in this regard and it rightly demonstrates the desperate need for everyone to be trained in the rigors of philosophy. Without it, we're doomed to become one with no-thing!
Dr. Groothuis, I would also appreciate your outline.
ReplyDeletegodwordATgmailDOTcom
thank you.
Dr. Groothuis,
ReplyDeleteAgain, superb job monday night! I know that many were praying for you.
I was wondering...Do Buddhists acknowledge the circularity in their idea of SPEAKING about nirvana? That is, if (as you said monday night) the metaphysical absence of their worldview undermines the ethical component of their teachings, does this not also undermine the epistemological component of their teachings. How do they even begin to explain things if ultimate reality is a sort of absolute absence? What exactly is their language tethered into?
OR, do they just bite the bullet and have a starting point that is not based in traditional logical/ontological/epistemological categories?
Eastern religions typically invoke the ineffable to explain the Tao, Nirvana, or Brahman. Having done, so they negate the ability to predicate anything meaningful to the supposedly supreme reality. So, there is no reason to hold their worldview. It lacks cognitive content at the "highest" level. On this, see Harold Netland, Dissonant Voices.
ReplyDelete