<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Krishna, Buddha and Christ: The same or different? (Part 5 and Conclusion)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://epages.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/krishna-buddha-and-christ-the-same-or-different-part-5/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://epages.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/krishna-buddha-and-christ-the-same-or-different-part-5/</link>
	<description>The real alternative</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:43:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: antipadshist</title>
		<link>http://epages.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/krishna-buddha-and-christ-the-same-or-different-part-5/#comment-1490</link>
		<dc:creator>antipadshist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:30:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://epages.wordpress.com/?p=3351#comment-1490</guid>
		<description>oops, I repeated Thaoism twice - 2nd one should  have been Conficianism</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oops, I repeated Thaoism twice &#8211; 2nd one should  have been Conficianism</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: antipadshist</title>
		<link>http://epages.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/krishna-buddha-and-christ-the-same-or-different-part-5/#comment-1489</link>
		<dc:creator>antipadshist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:28:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://epages.wordpress.com/?p=3351#comment-1489</guid>
		<description>correct me if I&#039;m wrong - but Michael Clark speaks here from the point of view of  the modern &quot;science&quot; (is it science or rather  section of knowledge?) called &quot;comparative religion&#039;.  in other words - not as a practicionary of any 3 compared by him faithes. 

alright, as I see on his blog - I guess he is a Christian.

I would agree with the 1st sentence of the Conclusion.

in the conclusion he mentioned it himself  that &quot;Buddha doesn&#039;t believe in God&quot;.  it is true - there is practically no any concept of God (or Paramatma / Bhagavan in sanskrit). I would add - as neither there any concept of soul (atma or jiva in sanskrit).

so, strictly speaking,  Buddhism  technically is not a religion - similarly to Thaoism and as I recall Thaoism. at most it is a philosophy  with purpose of  improvement.
(I don&#039;t want to go too much into details)

therefore  I think  these 3 can&#039;t be properly compared as  religions.  may be only as  &quot;organised religions&quot; (large institutions with certain structures and hierarchy  mostly  viewed as encompassing their congregation and to some extent  expanding that congregation) - which is more like material term rather than spiritual.


as for comparison betwenn other 2. as I recall, according to Vedic tradition,  religion with Krishna in the center (as a supreme God/ Bhagavan among many demigods / devas) has specific  term  &quot;sanatana-dharma&quot;  whish means &quot;eternal religion&quot;  (or some translate it even as &quot;eternal inheritant quality/ activity of the spitit soul&quot;). while  other other religions  are considered as &quot;upa-dharma&quot;  or &quot;temporary path&quot; (also - lesser ?), both in the sense that such religions are relatively brief in time (well, say - if compared with the life time of a planet, what to say - universe)  as well as  in the sense that eternal soul follows such path only briefly or temprorarily on its  too  long jorney through the samsara circle.  also,  &quot;upa-dharma&quot;  religions  tend to provide  quite a limited spiritual knowledge.

however the concept of God, soul and their relations  is present, which I guess makes them more similar than with Buddhism. although Christianity has much less explanation about personal aspect of God.

anyway,   I think it is quite a nice article. 
(BTW  Michael - the central them of Gita  is  usually misunderstood - it is not the &quot;holy warfare&quot;  but love, devotion and surrendering to God and his will - which is more or less the same  as Christ&#039;s teachings are about    - as in  &quot;let it be your will, not mine ...&quot; )</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>correct me if I&#8217;m wrong &#8211; but Michael Clark speaks here from the point of view of  the modern &#8220;science&#8221; (is it science or rather  section of knowledge?) called &#8220;comparative religion&#8217;.  in other words &#8211; not as a practicionary of any 3 compared by him faithes. </p>
<p>alright, as I see on his blog &#8211; I guess he is a Christian.</p>
<p>I would agree with the 1st sentence of the Conclusion.</p>
<p>in the conclusion he mentioned it himself  that &#8220;Buddha doesn&#8217;t believe in God&#8221;.  it is true &#8211; there is practically no any concept of God (or Paramatma / Bhagavan in sanskrit). I would add &#8211; as neither there any concept of soul (atma or jiva in sanskrit).</p>
<p>so, strictly speaking,  Buddhism  technically is not a religion &#8211; similarly to Thaoism and as I recall Thaoism. at most it is a philosophy  with purpose of  improvement.<br />
(I don&#8217;t want to go too much into details)</p>
<p>therefore  I think  these 3 can&#8217;t be properly compared as  religions.  may be only as  &#8220;organised religions&#8221; (large institutions with certain structures and hierarchy  mostly  viewed as encompassing their congregation and to some extent  expanding that congregation) &#8211; which is more like material term rather than spiritual.</p>
<p>as for comparison betwenn other 2. as I recall, according to Vedic tradition,  religion with Krishna in the center (as a supreme God/ Bhagavan among many demigods / devas) has specific  term  &#8220;sanatana-dharma&#8221;  whish means &#8220;eternal religion&#8221;  (or some translate it even as &#8220;eternal inheritant quality/ activity of the spitit soul&#8221;). while  other other religions  are considered as &#8220;upa-dharma&#8221;  or &#8220;temporary path&#8221; (also &#8211; lesser ?), both in the sense that such religions are relatively brief in time (well, say &#8211; if compared with the life time of a planet, what to say &#8211; universe)  as well as  in the sense that eternal soul follows such path only briefly or temprorarily on its  too  long jorney through the samsara circle.  also,  &#8220;upa-dharma&#8221;  religions  tend to provide  quite a limited spiritual knowledge.</p>
<p>however the concept of God, soul and their relations  is present, which I guess makes them more similar than with Buddhism. although Christianity has much less explanation about personal aspect of God.</p>
<p>anyway,   I think it is quite a nice article.<br />
(BTW  Michael &#8211; the central them of Gita  is  usually misunderstood &#8211; it is not the &#8220;holy warfare&#8221;  but love, devotion and surrendering to God and his will &#8211; which is more or less the same  as Christ&#8217;s teachings are about    &#8211; as in  &#8220;let it be your will, not mine &#8230;&#8221; )</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
