In this case it’s the law of:
It’s very straight forward
Agree.
What Buddha said was any religion who teaches Four Truths and Noble Eightfold Path is considered as his teaching. I can’t recall the Sutta. Perhaps one of our learned friend may give the reference.
He doesn’t need to be. If a person understands the principles of the dhamma it can be applied to any religious teaching that came before or comes afterwards.
Possibly. But with concepts like ominpotent, omniscient creator God, heaven, Jesus etc (replace terms from any other theistic religion) it becomes clear that, that teaching is very different kettle of fish from the Buddha’s teachings. Attempting to approximate (apart from sila and samadhi) doesn’t help people from either religion. Better to be honest and just accept they are different. By mixing both together you will achieve neither one. Maybe practice both but separately?
Only Protestants (one particular sect of Christianity) treat the teachings of Jesus in such a way and treat the religious scriptures of Christianity in such a way. Christianity, traditionally, is not really a textual religion before ~15-1600.
Christianity was traditionally taught for many years in post-Medieval Europe, after the textualization of Christianity, as an essentially oral teaching based on the Catechisms, not the Gospels, in non-Protestant circles at least. The Bible, not being designed to “teach people Christianity”, is only treated in such a way by some sects.
One can consider the Catechism of, for instance, the Roman Church, as something similar to a Abhidhammatthasangaha. It is a summary of doctrines, not a narrative story, like the Bible.
1 Like
In fact, IMO, one can draw more lines:
EBTs = Pauline Epistles, Gospels of Thomas & Mark, perhaps Acts of the Apostles, &c.
Pāli Canon = Canonical Gospels (definitive modern versions of Luke, &c)
Abhidhamma = Gospel of John, possibly, but more likely it would be a collection of theological writings by Church Fathers
Abhidhammatthasangaha = Catechism
But there’s only one Dhamma right? And that Dhamma is to be realised, rather than learnt, if I understand correctly.
I guess you are talking about mundane right view in this case? That sort of right view comes at the beginning of the path (along with right effort) as I understand it - prior to sila and samadhi. Later there seems to be an understanding that all views are suspect and of course no effort is required from stream entry on.
Well, sort of. But only if we assess them in a naive fashion without recourse to what we learn from samadhi.
Christianity is a very broad church, and even my form of Christianity (Roman Catholic) is a very broad church these days, and where once views such as some of those found in the EBTs would’ve been considered heretical, we are nowadays allowed to hold them and remain in communion. Those terms/concepts that you use are quite ambiguous in a broad church sense, and are often now used situationally (rather than, say, metaphysically). Well at least in my small corner of the church this is the case.
I’m not sure how one individual could practice both separately. How would that work?
Regardless, I don’t think there is anything to be achieved anyway, so that’s lucky. 
For me realisation/liberation is not the same as achievement.
For me the EBTs are fantastic because they point out the various features in the spiritual landscape like a map points out physical features of the land. Then you go and have a look, and only then do you get the insight. The words are just skillful means to get you to look in the right place. Then when you look and see, you understand that they are great descriptions of what has been seen. But just like the Christian concepts that you mention, they don’t make a lot of sense without samadhi in my opinion, although I understand that this is not the case for other people reading the suttas.
What we gain insight into from samadhi is the nature of reality. It shows the impermanence, unsatisfactory and not-Self nature of all phenomena. It shows even now, what is here cannot be considered a Self or a Soul. It shows we live thinking an illusion of beings are reality. Not only does this insight include You and Me, but also Buddha, Indra and God. At the level of insight many illusions become faded.
Maybe a broad church can live with this?
With metta
1 Like
Yes. It certainly seems so.
I doubt it.
Maybe some noise can be made about religious tolerance and representatives from various religions can gather around in a conference and discuss the practical advantages of tolerance etc. But, deep down, I’d imagine that every adherent will think that his or her doctrine is the only way to attain final salvation - the very meaning of the word ‘salvation’ will be vastly different.
Some personal experiences can be common amongst various religions, but the fundamental views that drive actions are not the same. Ultimately, one who wants total liberation from suffering will have to inquire deeply and choose a path.
I guess this is a different question. The question I thought that @Mat was asking was can a broad church (in my case the Roman Catholic church) live in communion with those who also see anicca, dukkha, anatta. To which it seems that this is so, because this is exactly what is happening. Everyone in the church knows what we meditators are up to, no one has been excommunicated for sharing or discussing this view and we are still allowed to meet on multiple church properties without hindrance.
Obviously this is a different way of working where you have a hierarchical church such as the Roman Catholic church. I believe that in Buddhism each monastery is independent, so the issue does not arise in the same fashion.
Personally, I don’t think that as humans we have to choose sides in the way that you describe. That sounds much more like 12 year olds choosing and supporting football teams. Religions are not (or should not be) competitors.
I think that if you are a meditator the mind becomes much more flexible in terms of views, as understanding of impermanence becomes more clearly established. The ability to simultaneously hold multiple views without a problem is a sign of maturity IMHO.
Good point. Personally I can see similar themes, but with different methods and often different destinations.
I think that the similarity of themes is based on the commonality of the human organism, while the methods to engage these experiences came to be played with in different ways over time as humans moved around the planet. It’s once these people start trying to explain them, and combine them with their ongoing socio-religious developments, that we see the wild divergences we do.
1 Like
My next-door neighbors are christians, my landlord is a muslim and I tell myself I can see tilakkhana to some extent, and we all seem to get along without any friction. 
This would make the Buddha just another 12 year old with a dimwitted outlook…
He was quite clear on his position regarding various systems and religions. As far as God goes, from AN 3.61 :
Those who fall back on God’s creative activity as the essential truth have no desire to do what should be done and to avoid doing what should not be done, nor do they make an effort in this respect. Since they do not apprehend as true and valid anything that should be done or should not be done, they are muddle-minded, they do not guard themselves, and even the personal designation ‘ascetic’ could not be legitimately applied to them. This was my second legitimate refutation of those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view.
It seems like a very harsh judgment, and God-fearing people would probably feel insulted by someone calling them as dullards, but twisting things and trying to come up with pleasant words that embraces all the differing doctrines in the world as one and the same dilutes everything and produces nothing except, well, new-age ‘gurus’.
I’d say that with such an outlook, maybe some samvega is lacking. Once the scale of misery and suffering in this world sinks in, then we start seeking an explanation. Falling back on God as an answer for the creation of the world will be seen as self-deception. Some minds will accept this paradoxical situation as a testament to their faith, but others will keep searching…
The view that the Buddha refers to in the sutta that you quote - AN 3.61
‘Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by God’s creative activity.’
is not a view (orthodox or otherwise) of the Roman Catholic church.
For me this highlights a problem that naturally occurs when we first look at others religions. It is difficult at first to see the subtleties of the doctrines. Equating what the Buddha said in AN 3.61 with the Christian view is like suggesting that the Buddha’s view on kamma and rebirth is the same as view #1 from that same sutta. That’s what many people believe to be the case, even many Buddhists. Thats why things like the myth busting session in the karma and rebirth course is so essential.
That’s not what I’m attempting. You have overstated my position
So, how many people among Christians share this idea? When did it emerge?
Oh yes:
MN 11
Bhikkhus, only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse, only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines of others are devoid mn.i.64 of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar your lion’s roar.
MN 13
Bhikkhus, I see no one in the world with its gods, its Māras, and its Brahmās, in this generation with its recluses and brahmins, with its princes and its people, who could satisfy the mind with a reply to these questions, except for the Tathāgata or his disciple or one who has learned it from them.
You can say he didn’t mention the future religions specifically, but that would be a bit of a reach, wouldn’t it? Besides, how come that all religions lead to the same goal except the Indic religions at the time of the Buddha. Or Jainism.
Oh yeah, that’s a nice question for @Charlie as part of his little speculative enterprise: the Mahavira and the Buddha were contemporaries and clearly considered each other to be an impostor, heretic and possibly idiot. Both religios still exist today. If they both had the same experience and bot religions have the same goal, how come the relationship between the two teachers were so strained?
236864527 and it emerged in 3062
In the quote you supply the Buddha specifically says “in this generation”.
Instead, they slide into convoluted statements about how God created the world and man, but man chose to be evil - this argument is millennia-old.
But why try so hard to wring different traditions into a same mould ?
Once all contradictions are hand-waved away and the surface similarities are grasped as forms of the same Truth, if one is self-honest then it will be seen that the basic problem of suffering and misery remains unexplained - especially all that has been relegated to the past.
I honestly don’t believe that this is what is happening here. There’s no trying involved. I’m just a Christian who has accumulated a little faith (based on my experience of over 50 years of Christian meditation) in what I have so far found taught by the Buddha in the few EBTs that I have investigated.
You know, I look at say the descriptions of jhana in the EBTs, and I just think, yeah, nicely explained Buddha. That fits with reality.
Meditative experiences can be common - the Buddha learnt how to attain formless absorptions under other teachers. But, moving beyond them, by attaining right view and insight requires discriminative effort rather than simple acceptance. IMO, anyway.
Agreed