Buddha vs. Jesus

[sidthesquish]

I started this post in the comparative religeon area, but found it fit more at home here. My point (sorry for the long windedness) is to show that buddhist philosophy and christian philosophy are 2 candles. Sure they are different colors but they are both made of wax, and both serve the purpose of shedding light on a dark world. and here we go...

Alright. Im new to this and frankly a little overwhelmed by the massive amount of threads there are that i want to respond to but i find that as i finish reading the progression of the thread it has goten so off topic that I dont even want to reply to the converstion on spelling and gramar that the tread degenerated to. So i figure ill start my own thread and see what happens.

Alright. now that that is done lets move into the title: Big Up To Buddha. I am a student of buddhism, and this has been a decision i have recently made. I have only recently devoted my self to buddhist studies since my deplyment in the middle east with a popular poster Steadle. He has showed me the glories of Tweb, and i thank him for it. I was raised a christian and never fully subscribed to the ideaology, and frankly thought that going to mass and sunday school was torture. So after i was confirmed, which was the only thing my family required of me, I became an agnostic. There is too much in this world that is unexplanable for there to be no "great supernatural force" and so i set off to search for the answers.

My first stop was World Religeons for Dummies. I know alot of people look down on that book series, but i find its fantastic as a starting point to learn about something you know nothing about. This was my first full description of buddhism, and i was intriqued. So i picked up some Buddhist books at a local book store and i found them confusing as hell. I read them anyways and found al sorts of confusing terms. So what did I do? Buddism for Dummies. That book gave me a great break down of the major schools of buddhism, and a window into the practices and thought processes. And that opened up a whole new world one that i have devoured and am still feasting on.

Buddhsm isnt really a religeon, but more of a philosophy. The things that every religeon ('scept maybe demon worhipers and stuff) teaches is found in buddhism as well. The key lies in the fact that everything is related, ever rock, person and drop of water. All the problems in this world are a result of human delusion (except natural disasters, though humans have caused some...). Everyone is too concerned witht the welfare of themselves, that they dont realize that if everyone cared about others, we would not be wanting. The ultimate goal of a buddhist shouldnt be enlightenment, but to help every person to be happy. And enlightened person is just someone who has truly released his ego and dedicates himself to helping others.

The buddha was one such man. He traveled the world preaching the dharma and helping others. Buddhism was started by him, but wouldnt have made it as far as it did with out his teaching style. Buddha woulod travel india and never spread the same message to different people, he would teach different people different parts of the dharma, depending on their personality and social status. As a result many different school of buddhism were created and gave shape to the buddhism we know today.

I have no idea who might be intersted with this thread, but i propose to make it a catch all discussion on the comparisons of buddhist and christian philosophy. I may be completely off on my ideas but im still new. I beleive that they really aren't any different, except in their wording and perhaps their nuances.

take care
rob

[Kenny]

First, allow me to say that from what I know of Buddhism, there are many things about it that I deeply respect. I especially respect its emphases on self-giving love and compassion toward all beings and in these respects I do think it shares a kinship with the ethics of Christianity. However…

My main ethical issue with Buddhism, from the standpoint of Christian mindset, is that it is a religion/philosophy of withdrawal and passivity. According to Buddhist philosophy, existence and life itself are fundamentally flawed (all life is Duka) and the only hope for salvation is to find a way out of the whole mess. Yes, it is true that Buddhism is a missionary religion which compassionately seeks to deliver others from suffering (and often its practitioners are more noble and sincere in that goal than the practitioners of Christianity), but Buddhism's method for relieving suffering is to show people how to withdraw from life and ultimately to end the cycle of their own existence. Christianity, by contrast, is a religion/philosophy of engagement and redemption. The world is messed up, that is true, but only because things have gone awry with it and not fundamentally so. We are not to withdraw from the world but we are to engage and transform it. The world and society are not fundamentally flawed things to be abandoned, but originally good but fallen things to be redeemed. We do not seek to end the cycle of our existence, but to orient it back toward its original purpose which is to love God and enjoy Him forever as part of a community of others who are united by such a love and enjoyment of God and by a love for each other. These are fundamentally different ethical orientations between the two religions, so I don't think it is correct to say that even their ethics are really just the same at heart

God Bless,
Kenny

[sidthesquish]

My main ethical issue with Buddhism, from the standpoint of Christian mindset, is that it is a religion/philosophy of withdrawal and passivity.

It certainly isnt. the withdrawal that buddhists make is only in meditation, and even that is withdrawal only in a phisical sense, the goal being to comtemplate existence. The precepts are not to withdraw from reality, but to fully understand it, or drink it.

According to Buddhist philosophy, existence and life itself are fundamentally flawed (all life is Duka) and the only hope for salvation is to find a way out of the whole mess.

Ill agree to this, kinda. But existence is only flawed because people make it that way in their delusions. Existence is perfect, it is our perspective and ego that prevents us from seeing the truth, from drinking life.

Yes, it is true that Buddhism is a missionary religion which compassionately seeks to deliver others from suffering (and often its practitioners are more noble and sincere in that goal than the practitioners of Christianity), but Buddhism's method for relieving suffering is to show people how to withdraw from life and ultimately to end the cycle of their own existence.

i will refer to my above statement that we teach to enlighten, to drink life, and to embrace the oneness of all things.

God Bless,
Kenny

and you my friend.

[Alien]

Hi Rob, welcome to Tweb. You guys are doing a great job out there ... make sure you keep your heads down, we want you back safe when it is all over.

First, allow me to say that from what I know of Buddhism, there are many things about it that I deeply respect. I especially respect its emphases on self-giving love and compassion toward all beings and in these respects I do think it shares a kinship with the ethics of Christianity.

I was a Buddhist for a few years, and I agree totally with what Kenny says here. Buddhism is essentially a peaceful, loving religion.

However…

My main ethical issue with Buddhism, from the standpoint of Christian mindset, is that it is a religion/philosophy of withdrawal and passivity. According to Buddhist philosophy, existence and life itself are fundamentally flawed (all life is Duka) and the only hope for salvation is to find a way out of the whole mess. Yes, it is true that Buddhism is a missionary religion which compassionately seeks to deliver others from suffering (and often its practitioners are more noble and sincere in that goal than the practitioners of Christianity), but Buddhism's method for relieving suffering is to show people how to withdraw from life and ultimately to end the cycle of their own existence. Christianity, by contrast, is a religion/philosophy of engagement and redemption. The world is messed up, that is true, but only because things have gone awry with it and not fundamentally so. We are not to withdraw from the world but we are to engage and transform it. The world and society are not fundamentally flawed things to be abandoned, but originally good but fallen things to be redeemed. We do not seek to end the cycle of our existence, but to orient it back toward its original purpose which is to love God and enjoy Him forever as part of a community of others who are united by such a love and enjoyment of God and by a love for each other. These are fundamentally different ethical orientations between the two religions, so I don't think it is correct to say that even their ethics are really just the same at heart

Yes, that's a good point. It may be that the results of Buddhist practice (on the practitioner) are not so different from those observed in many Christians. A believer in prevenient grace would not be surprised, as he would attribute the same cause to both effects. Nevertheless, the basic philosophies are very different in the respect that Kenny notes.

Another big difference is that Buddhism teaches salvation through our own efforts. Christianity teaches that we cannot save ourselves, but need God's grace. As a matter of fact this was to me a selling point for Buddhism, as Christianity seemed so negative regarding humans. "We are all miserable sinners, deserving of nothing but eternal punishment, and can only be saved by an act of mercy from God". (OK, that's a deliberate charicature, but that's how I saw it). Buddhism on the other hand says that we are essentially good, but confused, and that we can fix ourselves (though it won't be easy).

I now believe that the Christian view is more accurate ... I don't think anyone is going to achieve salvation through their own efforts ... but that's a personal view.

[Kenny]

My main ethical issue with Buddhism, from the standpoint of Christian mindset, is that it is a religion/philosophy of withdrawal and passivity.

It certainly isnt. the withdrawal that buddhists make is only in meditation, and even that is withdrawal only in a phisical sense, the goal being to comtemplate existence.

Yes, but the ultimate goal of that is to reach Nirvana which is the end of the cycle of rebirth, the cessation of existence (whether this amounts to entering into a state of complete non-being or simply into a state of being that transcends existence as we understand it is a debated point among Buddhist scholars).

The precepts are not to withdraw from reality, but to fully understand it, or drink it.

Yes, but ultimately that is so one can see through it not so that one might engage it.

According to Buddhist philosophy, existence and life itself are fundamentally flawed (all life is Duka) and the only hope for salvation is to find a way out of the whole mess.

I'll agree to this, kinda. But existence is only flawed because people make it that way in their delusions.

Well yes, but, those delusions are the stuff of life itself, the very things that perpetuate the cycle of existence. To rid one's self of those illusions is to escape the cycle of existence all together.

Existence is perfect, it is our perspective and ego that prevents us from seeing the truth, from drinking life.

Nirvana, in which there are no distinctions, no passions, no activity, may be perfect (and part of this depends on whether Nirvana is conceived as completely non-being are a sort of being above our understanding of existence), but existence as we know it, the cycle of rebirth, life itself, is fundamentally characterized by Duka (loosely translated 'suffering,' more accurately, perhaps, as 'being fundamentally flawed'). Granted, life as we understand it is thought to be an illusion, but that still makes life the illusion behind all of our suffering.

i will refer to my above statement that we teach to enlighten, to drink life, and to embrace the oneness of all things.

Christianity seeks to go past merely drinking life in, however, but also to engage and transform it for the better.

Blessings,
Kenny

[Kenny]

Hi Rob, welcome to Tweb. You guys are doing a great job out there ... make sure you keep your heads down, we want you back safe when it is all over.

Another big difference is that Buddhism teaches salvation through our own efforts. Christianity teaches that we cannot save ourselves, but need God's grace.

Interestingly enough, though, that's not true of all forms of Buddhism. There is a form of Buddhism called "Pureland" Buddhism by Westerners (I forget the actual name for it) whose practitioners believe that by placing their faith in a celestial Buddha figure they will be saved by grace through faith and taken to the Pureland. This form of Buddhism seems like a rather odd departure from the original to me, yet it exists nonetheless.

As a matter of fact this was to me a selling point for Buddhism, as Christianity seemed so negative regarding humans. "We are all miserable sinners, deserving of nothing but eternal punishment, and can only be saved by an act of mercy from God".

It's interesting, though, that the negativity Christianity ascribes to human beings is characterized by a deeper optimism about human beings. Human beings were originally created in the image of God and are therefore valuable. Human life is fundamentally good. The problem is that human beings have gone awry and thus need redemption, not a flaw in the very nature of human existence itself. Buddhism actually comes out far more pessimistic in this regard – human existence is flawed at its very core and is only something to be escaped.

(OK, that's a deliberate charicature, but that's how I saw it). Buddhism on the other hand says that we are essentially good, but confused, and that we can fix ourselves (though it won't be easy).

Yes, morally speaking, Buddhism is much more optimistic than Christianity where it pertains to the goodness of humanity. But, ontologically speaking, Buddhism is far more pessimistic about the goodness of human existence than Christianity. It's an interesting dichotomy.

In Christ,
Kenny

[sidthesquish]

Alright, i am terribly wrong. In fact my whole point is not only out the door, but on a flight to the moon. The result may be similar when a christian and buddhist attain 'enlightenment' (you know what i mean) but the acheivement ther in is completely differnt. I guess i shouldnt cave in so easily, huh? not much of a debate when a debater caves in after 4 posts. curses, foiled again. I think in a way they are still similar though. God wont elevate a person to heaven unless he finds the light and workds to be a good christian, there for christians are essentially getting salvation by their own deeds, but ultimately god judges them, but they can only get it through your own deed.

[Kenny]

Alright, i am terribly wrong. In fact my whole point is not only out the door, but on a flight to the moon.

Well, I don’t know if it's that bad. There are some authentic similarities. For example, I think much of the teachings of Buddha regarding the necessity of killing to ego to gain happiness resonate with the teachings of Jesus that whoever would find his life has to lose it (although, again, the orientations are a bit different here – in Christianity the goal is not to kill the ego as such but to reorient it away from self centeredness).

The result may be similar when a christian and buddhist attain 'enlightenment' (you know what i mean) but the acheivement ther in is completely differnt.

Yes, in Christianity we are saved by becoming fully ourselves – that is, who we were intended to be – lovers of God and lovers of others who eternally experience and enjoy God and the community of His people. In Buddhism one seeks to kill the self entirely and the goal is to reach a state beyond distinctions all together rather than to remain one's self in a community.

I guess i shouldnt cave in so easily, huh? not much of a debate when a debater caves in after 4 posts.

Well, we would all probably do better here if we were more willing to concede when we are wrong.

urses, foiled again. I think in a way they are still similar though. God wont elevate a person to heaven unless he finds the light

But Christians don't believe that we do that on our own. God takes the initiative in bringing the light to us. At best there is a lack of resistance on our part (as a Calvinist, though, I deny that we even make that much of a contribution).

and workds to be a good christian,

Actually, this follows salvation as a natural result (kind of like how love and compassion simply springs forth naturally following enlightenment in Buddhism). We are saved by being restored to fellowship with God and having His Spirit put within us. This starts us off on a journey where we gradually become more and more like Jesus, more and more people of self-giving love who serve God and others. These things do not save us though, they are the result of our being saved.

there for christians are essentially getting salvation by their own deeds,

Not really. Salvation precedes the good deeds and becomes the source of them.

but ultimately god judges them, but they can only get it through your own deed.

Actually, we are saved entirely by grace and our deeds have nothing to do with meriting our salvation at all. We do good works, through the Holy Spirit working within us, out of a response of love and gratitude in response to the free gift of salvation God has already given us.

God Bless,
Kenny

[sidthesquish]

Interestingly enough, though, that's not true of all forms of Buddhism. There is a form of Buddhism called "Pureland" Buddhism by Westerners (I forget the actual name for it) whose practitioners believe that by placing their faith in a celestial Buddha figure they will be saved by grace through faith and taken to the Pureland. This form of Buddhism seems like a rather odd departure from the original to me, yet it exists nonetheless.

Pure land is kinda a crock to me. The pure land school gets its inspiration from the mahayana sutras that focus on Amitabha, the buddha of infinate light. Unlike historical buddha, amitabha is atranscedental being who exist beyond time and space. Acording to the sutras in which Shakyamuni(buddha) supposedly revealed this buddhas existence, amitabha (Ami-to-fo in chinese, Amida in Japanese) dwells in the western paradise of Sukhavati, or the Pure Land of Bliss. The land was created by a series of devotional vows that the then human, bodhisattva Dharmakara made before his guru. in the vows Amitabha declared he would make a sacred realm for the benefit of all beings upon his enlightenment. To be born into this 'heaven' all you need is unwavering faith in Amitabha. The main purpose of the sutras describing Sukhavati are to remind you of Amitabha's compasion: he already brought Sukhavati into existence for you. Most other schools of buddhism were interesting to people who wanted to study buddhism, but Pure Land is for those who want to practice it. Just have true faith in Amitabha and you'll be reborn in Sukhavati. In Japan the Jodo-shu school founded by Honen declared all you need to do is recite the nembutsu and you would be saved. Just recite 'Namo amitabhaya buddhaya' (japanese - 'namu amida butsu') or 'hommage to amitabha buddha'. Some of the other schools founded in japan, based off of the pureland school, get even more simple!

take care

rob

[Duder]

When I saw the extravagant title of your thread, Buddha v Jesus, I thought perhaps you wanted to speculate on which of the two would win in a boxing match.

I'd pick Jesus, hands down. His style of verbal confrontation tells me that He understands the principles of Judo - using His opponent's own force against him. Also, the Buddha was an ascetic for so long that his body may be weakened and worn down.

No KOs or knochdowns, but Jesus in a unanimous decision.

[rossum]

The problem with the Boxing Match is that whoever throws the first punch loses.

rossum

[BlackOpal12]

Ah...I thought I felt a disturbance in the force!
Welcome, Namaste, and a Lotus for you, sidthesquish (and also to the rest of you).

Yes, in Christianity we are saved by becoming fully ourselves – that is, who we were intended to be – lovers of God and lovers of others who eternally experience and enjoy God and the community of His people. In Buddhism one seeks to kill the self entirely and the goal is to reach a state beyond distinctions all together rather than to remain one's self in a community.

I must, regretfully, disagree with your interpretation of the negation of self in Buddhism. The path to renunciation and realization of the emptiness of self is often described as "killing," but it would be more apropos to describe it as "releasing." To say that there is a permanent, immutable self to kill is antithetical to the vast majority of Buddhist teachings - rather, it is realising that there is no permanent "self" to begin with. It really is not so different from the vision of the body of Christ, in Christian terms... "for we are all one in Christ Jesus," without the hierarchies, obstinate individualism and divisiveness that injures and belabors the proverbial Body of Christ.

although, again, the orientations are a bit different here – in Christianity the goal is not to kill the ego as such but to reorient it away from self centeredness

This is actually exactly the point of the loss of the ego... it is the centrism of our focus on our selves that obfuscates truth and blinds us to reality-as-it-is. When the focus of our consciousness is taken away from our supposed "selves," and extended unto the intracies and holisticies of existence, we have stepped forward unto enlightenment.

Buddhism actually comes out far more pessimistic in this regard – human existence is flawed at its very core and is only something to be escaped.

Not to quibble over little points, but I'd have to disagree with you again on this point. Existence is not flawed, but our interpretations of existence. It is said that Samsara (the world we percieve) and Nirvana (the world of the enlightened) are one and the same. There is no separation between them, except that when we allow ourselves to be blinded by suffering, the Truths of Nirvana become obscured and obsequious, resulting in the perception of Samsara. Human existence is not so much something to be escaped, as much as it is something to be revealed in a clearer light.

Yes, but the ultimate goal of that is to reach Nirvana which is the end of the cycle of rebirth, the cessation of existence (whether this amounts to entering into a state of complete non-being or simply into a state of being that transcends existence as we understand it is a debated point among Buddhist scholars).

What you describe here is the textbook definition of Nirvana - though I would question whether Nirvana is the end, or the path, as the Dharma is the conventional wisdom for reaching Enlightenment, with Nirvana being a "fringe benefit," if you will. Nirvana is simply a truer understanding of existence, as achieved through Enlightenment. What one does with their Enlightenment is often debated... in the Theravada traditions, the Enlightened are (normatively) understood as arhat, the recluse, the hermit, the wise Guru on the mountain - Enlightened and separate from the pittances of Samsara. In the Mahayana traditions, there is a history of Bodhisattva, the transcended ones, who reach Enlightenment and return to guide the masses unto their own revelations. (It is from this tradition of Bodhisattvas that the Amitdhaba redemption school arises - a transcendent one, leading the people to Nirvana, as it is).

In essence, I disagree with you on the end-point of Buddhism's Eightfold Path... the understanding of Nirvana (reality-as-it-is, unclouded by desire and suffering) is a result of the Eightfold Path (specifically, a prerequisite to fulfilling said path, in "Right Understanding"); whereas, Enlightenment is the culmination of all Eight Folds, if you will. Understanding is the true goal, while the actions based on that understanding are dependent on the Enlightened one themselves - be they arhat, bodhisattva, or Siddhartha himself.

I do not mean to sound as if I am reproaching you, Kenny - you have made some very good conclusions, based on the information you have had available to you. However, as I percieve, you are still somewhat encapsulated by the Western incapacity to separate the perception from the percieved; i.e. what "really is" from what we see. It is not existence that is flawed, it is not reality-as-it-is that causes suffering - it is our misperceptions, our undue clinging to images of immutability in an utterly mutable world, our longing for that which we cannot have or cannot be... these are the roots of our flaws, the basis of our suffering - that we cannot understand what truly is, and torment ourselves with the things that cannot be.

Now, Sidthesquish, for your thoughts on the pairity of Christian thought and Buddhist thought, you might find the Vietnamese ex-patriot Thich Nhat Hanh to be a great resource to you in your path. He has written multitudes of books on mindfulness and right actions - but he is most well-known for his work with Buddhist-Christian ecumenism. His book "Living Buddha, Living Christ" is a magnificent example of inter-religious dialogue and the symmetry/pairity of much of Buddhist/Christian tradition and ideology. His book "Jesus and Buddha as Brothers" is also a monumental work in the Buddhist/Christian ecumenist front.

As to the Boxing Match... I'm going to have to disagree with Duder.
While Jesus might have irraviscably effective hits, he could never land one on Buddha - there is No Thing there to hit.
Buddha would simply finish Christ off with the deafening sound of one hand clapping.

Hehe.

But anyhow, I hope this helps.
Namaste to all,
The Opal

Om gate gate paragate parasumgate bodhi svaha!

[bhukkadakota]

Ill have to disagree with duder too, i mean i look at a picture of jesus and then i look at a picture of buddha. Im thinking buddha can pick jesus up and throw him across the room. However jesus might have a unfair advantage in being omnipotent. Still i say buddha K.O in 2nd round.

[sidthesquish]

Rumor has it that buddha didnt give up astheticism because he thought it wasnt helping him, he gave it up to train for the title match with jesus. Jesus would get a whupin' like no other. JK. I was afraid this post would degenerate into something like this.

[sidthesquish]

Now, Sidthesquish, for your thoughts on the pairity of Christian thought and Buddhist thought, you might find the Vietnamese ex-patriot Thich Nhat Hanh to be a great resource to you in your path. He has written multitudes of books on mindfulness and right actions - but he is most well-known for his work with Buddhist-Christian ecumenism. His book "Living Buddha, Living Christ" is a magnificent example of inter-religious dialogue and the symmetry/pairity of much of Buddhist/Christian tradition and ideology. His book "Jesus and Buddha as Brothers" is also a monumental work in the Buddhist/Christian ecumenist front.

word. i will look into this. thanks for your help.

rob