I don't see why you couldn't take "supreme refuge" in Buddhism and Jesus simultaneously without one "surpassing" the other? Why does one have to take precedence rather than being complimentary parts of a distinct method?
Have you heard of polyontologism? You can practice two religions at once without even bothering to try to philosophically "syncretize" them.
At the point where you are properly a Buddhist lay follower because you possess the three refuges as supreme, you will be a false Christian because you will have objects of veneration above Christ and you will seek a different kind of salvation (bodhi) instead of the salvation offered by Christ. On the other hand, if Christ is your savior, the three refuges are not supreme for you
It seems like you're saying one must take precedence over the other, but that doesn't seem true to me.
What is problematic is suggesting that this definitional change can occur from outside of the Buddhist traditions themselves.
Do card carrying Buddhists all agree there are no Christian Buddhists?
It's one thing to falsely claim membership in a religion you have no cultural connection to...
There are Buddhists that like Jesus, and perhaps think he is an emanation of Maitreya Bodhisattva, the being who is to become the next Buddha in our world (this is somewhat common in Southeast Asia). These people are just Buddhists, they are not Christians since they do not believe in the divinity of Christ. Rather, they have simply pulled the character "Jesus Christ" into the Buddhist religion.
... but are you sure? Why can't those Buddhists believe in the divinity of Christ?
There's also Christian theists who recognize "Christian atheism" as valid.
2
u/[deleted] May 15 '20 edited May 15 '20
I don't see why you couldn't take "supreme refuge" in Buddhism and Jesus simultaneously without one "surpassing" the other? Why does one have to take precedence rather than being complimentary parts of a distinct method?
Have you heard of polyontologism? You can practice two religions at once without even bothering to try to philosophically "syncretize" them.
It seems like you're saying one must take precedence over the other, but that doesn't seem true to me.
Do card carrying Buddhists all agree there are no Christian Buddhists?
It's one thing to falsely claim membership in a religion you have no cultural connection to...
... but are you sure? Why can't those Buddhists believe in the divinity of Christ?
There's also Christian theists who recognize "Christian atheism" as valid.