Buddha vs Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter antoniont1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmm, I think our views might differ here a bit. I probably won’t go this far to claim that they are this different. The doctrines do not match fully, but doesn’t the Holy Spirit work in Buddhism so that they have some partial Truth? Does Buddhism not teach about virtues such as love and compassion?

By merely accepting Jesus, or Buddha, and not reply, won’t it be just the same as the case of those seeds that do not land in good soil in the Sower’s parable?
Antonio
There is a grave difference between the two.
No doubt that Holy Spirit works, not only in Buddhism, but with all sincere seekers. Yes, Buddhists’ truths are amazing and admirable, as well as their holy men when you see them in person. Beyond teachings is the outcome. In Christianity, salvation is regarded as eternal personal loving relationship with God. In Buddhism there is no God and there is no person either. So, there is no love, since it takes two to love, and there is no relationship, since Buddhism says that personal identity is just an illusion. We are all Buddha, just suffering from a temporary ignorance about our true nature. So, bear with me here, for the sake of this discussion I will say that in Buddhism you have to become perfect, to become a genuine Buddha and then merge with the impersonal “Buddha-thing”.
In Christianity, you are eternal servant of Christ. And it does not take so much to become perfect in Christianity, just develop some loving relationship with Christ, and you will naturally become His servant, up to the point when “I live no more, but only Christ lives in me”. This quote does not mean merging with Christ, but the pinnacle of personal love and surrender. So becoming a perfect Christian is easy, since Christ paved the path to Himself, and that path does not include severe introspection, like in Buddhism. Every Buddhists have to meet his own demon Mara and defeat him, like Buddha did, but Christ was supposed to defeat Satan and death for the sake of all of us. We do not have to become like Christ or to imitate Him or repeat everything he did. As far as I know, the topmost help you get in Buddhism is when a perfect soul comes back, meaning: is born again in this world (Bodhisattva) in order to help others.
 
As I’ve said, he is not a Christian. Perhaps when I meet my cousin face to face and get to talk about religion things can clear up.

Unfortunately I do not know what kind of Buddhism my cousin (not my friend) is leaning towards… but I think (since we are Chinese) he believes the Buddha to be completely human, and not an avatar that you described (Buddhism has more different schools than Christianity en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism, at least on whether Buddha is divine: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism). From what we seem to understand, pure Buddhism (that I understand from hearsay) is agnostic and Buddha being divine is an influence from other religions such as Hinduism…

Thanks for your reply.
I guess he leans towards the Theravada School, then?
 
Before I returned to the Church I had thought about these kinds of questions too and frankly had come to conclusions not unlike your friend. In fact these types of things have been discussed within the church throughout history. The conclusions I had come to in trying to reconsile the matter did not and, still, do not fit entirely with Church teaching due to my own limitations of understanding and therefore I cannot help you a whole lot with direct advise.

Personally I would take the tack (as I did years ago) of not rejecting either. Budda, who lived long before Jesus was born, and in a land far removed from Isreal, sought “enlightement”, sought God in the best ways he knew. The Catechism, in para 847 states that:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation
I think it is safe to say that the Budda would likely fit this description.
In addition, though his understandings were quite different than ours, he did try to understand and keep the “Two Great Commandments” of Love. Love God with your entire being and Love your neighbor as yourself.
So Budda, like others who sincerely sought enlightenment, was looking and building toward that which was achieved, not by man, but by the one eternal God through the incarnation of Christ.

I hope some of this helps.

Peace
James
Good Post. And I agree with it. 👍
 
If he believes Buddha has merit over Christ because he is merely human, point him towards the lives of the saints where thousands upon thousands of mere humans easily outstrip Buddha in this regard.

John
👍

Many of the Saints (particualrly some of The Desert Fathers And Mothers) easily Outdistance or at least Equal The Buddha in Asceticism, Devotion, and Wisdom.:)🙂
 
👍

Many of the Saints (particualrly some of The Desert Fathers And Mothers) easily Outdistance or at least Equal The Buddha in Asceticism, Devotion, and Wisdom.:)🙂
uhhh…a rather unwise comment that is, me thinks…not a p1$$ing contest this is.
 
I forgot to mention in case I didn’t make it clear. My view is not a mainstream view. It would be shared by some like Sri Yukteswar, Lahiri Mahasaya and Paramahansa Yogananda. Also the exact count of which Avatar is which number isn’t so important, and depends a good deal on how one dates the events in the Mahabharata. I also believe in a number of more minor Avatars like Sri Anandamayi Ma.
Thank you. I see now. It is always good to explain, especially at places like this, where people of different traditions do not always understand strange terminology and ideas. So, a definition of avatar is complex in Hinduism.

The way you explained it first, it seemed like if you placed Christ right into the most inner Hindu Pantheon. But now we can see that you also regard other persons of our, modern time to be also avatars. This is not only in line with Hindu understanding of avesha avatar, where Christ could easily fit in, but also with your less-formal understanding of the term, something like in Yukteshwar being entitled as Jnana-avatar, Yogananda as Prema-avatar etc.

More strict Hinduism will stick with the fixed list of avatars given in Garuda purana. Sources like this are valuable as a precaution, so no one can come one day and claim “I am an avatar”. For newbies, avatar means descent of God, God coming down to material world.
 
uhhh…a rather unwise comment that is, me thinks…not a p1$$ing contest this is.
I know it’s not a “p—ing contest.”

I was simply agreeing with a previous poster who commented on the Saints with words similar to mine.

MY opinion—nothing more, nothing less. And I AM an Eastern Catholic. Neither an Ecumenicist nor a Buddhist. :rolleyes:
 
uhhh…a rather unwise comment that is, me thinks…not a p1$$ing contest this is.
Right on, algebra. It’s not a --uh–contest. However, , the people of the east, notably Hindus, are some of the most ascetic people in the world. Modern Buddhists discourage extreme asceticism which the Buddha practiced in his search for enlightenment. Not achieving enlightenment, finally he sat under a bodhi tree and said that he would not move from it until he was enlightened. He stayed there for an unknown period. Finally, he saw the path to enlightenment. He rose, a new man, and accepted some nourishment. One of his comrades saw him eating and roundly criticized him for doing such a dastardly thing. He also noticed the Buddha’s shining face and realized that he had achieved enlightenment. The Buddha abandoned his extreme asceticism and did not encourage it in his followers.
Although the Buddha mitigated the extreme asceticism that he had practiced, Buddhist monks and nuns still live very ascetic lives, not eating much, meditating for long hours and not getting much sleep. They also live in harsh climates.

For devotion and wisdom, I feel that Buddhism has no takers. Buddhists of all types follow the precepts, live virtuous and abstemious lives, and usually make their Buddhism the core of their day to day life. The myriads of Buddhist writings, mentioned in previous posts, addressing all phases of philosophy, belief and practice and its applications to human life, attest to Buddhist wisdom.

I would emphasize that there are many types of Buddhism. Some, apparently, as previously mentioned, regard the Buddha as having existed from the beginning of time. Many Buddhists in the East commonly regard him as a god. Some types of Buddhism have a myriads of gods and goddesses, named and identified. However, the Buddha himself, is commonly attributed as saying, “If you see the Buddha, kill him!” He resisted all attempts to make himself a god or to be worshiped.
 
I have been to vipasanna 3 times, happy sitting. i have lived in a monastery too…
 
Tribalism isn’t going help you serve Jesus any better.
How would YOU know whether Tribalism is going to Help me serve Christ better or Not?

What would you suggest I go for, anyway?

“All Religions and Traditions lead to God?”:confused:
 
How would YOU know whether Tribalism is going to Help me serve Christ better or Not?

What would you suggest I go for, anyway?

“All Religions and Traditions lead to God?”:confused:
Because I am a follower of the Christ, I know what it takes, and tribalism has no part of it.

Humility is what is needed, and pride in your tribe is opposed to the humility of Christ.
 
Because I am a follower of the Christ, I know what it takes, and tribalism has no part of it.

Humility is what is needed, and pride in your tribe is opposed to the humility of Christ.
I agree with the Humility Of Christ, but pardon me, but you identify yourself as Agnostic, yet you are a “Follower Of Christ.”:confused:

Oh…I see. You are probably like Anne Rice, a “Follower, but not a Christian.”

Sort of the “True Christian,” so to speak. OK. Let me ask you, then------

Why do you think Christ came down to Earth?

And do you think Christ is the Son Of God?👍
 
Why do you think Christ came down to Earth?

And do you think Christ is the Son Of God?👍
Jesus offered his life as a sacrifice that would be pleasing to God.

I am of jewish heritage, I attend mass and synagogue, and briefly was in the RCIA.

I understand the term Son of God in many ways. Some are akin to your understanding, and some are not akin to your understanding.

Suffice it to know that I accept the validity of your interpretation of the Tanakh, and the understanding of the Godhead as well.
 
Jesus offered his life as a sacrifice that would be pleasing to God.

I am of jewish heritage, I attend mass and synagogue, and briefly was in the RCIA.

I understand the term Son of God in many ways. Some are akin to your understanding, and some are not akin to your understanding.

Suffice it to know that I accept the validity of your interpretation of the Tanakh, and the understanding of the Godhead as well.
Believe it or not, I was genuinely curious. I sort of used to be like that back in the day.

Of course, Catholics and most Christians would say that Jesus came to Earth to Die For Our Sins, but I understand that you may Disagree.

Was just curious as to why you Put yourself as Agnostic in your description but say you are a Follower of Christ in a previous Post. OOOOOKKKKKKK. 😛

Right now, it is late where I am and I do not want to get into an discussion. But I have not talked to you before. Hi!👋

And by the way, I DO attempt to NOT be “Tribal.”

The Catechism of Holy Mother Church DOES state that sincere believers who genuinely seek God with all their Hearts and live Godly lives but are NOT Catholic/Christian may also be able to reach Heaven.

I just believe the BEST, Foolproof Way is to be part of Holy Mother Church. MY opinion, of course.

OT, but----

(Great discussion you were having with SisterAmy on the other Thread. She dragged me into it. Unfortunate.Even though I disagree with her on a lot of things, I liked the back and forth you two had.) 👍
 
👍

Many of the Saints (particualrly some of The Desert Fathers And Mothers) easily Outdistance or at least Equal The Buddha in Asceticism, Devotion, and Wisdom.:)🙂
The Buddha tried asceticism. It doesn’t work. It is one of the two extremes that are to be avoided. Buddhism is the Middle Way between the extremes of sensual indulgence and asceticism.

Here is the Buddha when he tried asceticism:

http://www.livius.org/a/pakistan/taxila/skinny_buddha.JPG

rossum
 
Thank you. I see now. It is always good to explain, especially at places like this, where people of different traditions do not always understand strange terminology and ideas. So, a definition of avatar is complex in Hinduism.

The way you explained it first, it seemed like if you placed Christ right into the most inner Hindu Pantheon. But now we can see that you also regard other persons of our, modern time to be also avatars. This is not only in line with Hindu understanding of avesha avatar, where Christ could easily fit in, but also with your less-formal understanding of the term, something like in Yukteshwar being entitled as Jnana-avatar, Yogananda as Prema-avatar etc.

More strict Hinduism will stick with the fixed list of avatars given in Garuda purana. Sources like this are valuable as a precaution, so no one can come one day and claim “I am an avatar”. For newbies, avatar means descent of God, God coming down to material world.
Hi miodrag1963: Yes, I think you see where I am coming from. For me, Jesus fits in as a Mahavatar or Great Avatar. I actually never considered Yoganada, Yutkeshwar or any of those folks to be avatars of any sort. I see them more as realized masters. They all followed Babaji, and I am open to him perhaps being an avatar. There just isn’t enough written on him. In the latter part of the 20th century there was this young guy who lived in India and claimed to be Babaji. Locally he was known as the Miller Babaji. To me he didn’t seem to possess any of the qualities of the Babaji that Yutkeswar followed, but who am I to say? I’m just a guy trying to do my best, and my best isn’t usually all that impressive. It’s my best nonetheless. 🙂

I have to stress that while there are Hindus who think they way I do, it is not in any way a predominant line of thinking among most Hindus. I am more of the Ram Das and Amit Goswami variety.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
I would emphasize that there are many types of Buddhism. Some, apparently, as previously mentioned, regard the Buddha as having existed from the beginning of time. Many Buddhists in the East commonly regard him as a god. Some types of Buddhism have a myriads of gods and goddesses, named and identified. However, the Buddha himself, is commonly attributed as saying, “If you see the Buddha, kill him!” He resisted all attempts to make himself a god or to be worshiped.
You’re correct that the Buddha never considered himself a deity. But, just to clarify things I’ll be shamelessly quoting myself, but here goes:
That being said, Mahayana Buddhism does have this concept of the more god-like Eternal Buddha. In some Mahayana sutras, the Buddha himself teaches that the Buddha is no longer essentially a human being but has become a being of a different order altogether and that, in his ultimate transcendental “body/mind” mode as Dharmakaya, he has eternal and infinite life, is present in all things (i.e., is “the boundless dharmadhatu”, according to the Nirvana Sutra), and is possessed of great and immeasurable qualities. The Lotus Sutra portrays the Buddha as indicating that he became ‘awakened’ countless, immeasurable, inconceivable myriads of trillions of aeons (kalpas) ago and that his lifetime is “forever existing and immortal”. Thus, from the human perspective, it would seem as though the Buddha has always existed.

Now, there is indeed no direct equivalent concept of ‘God’ (in the way we understand it) in Buddhism, a non-theistic religion, in the sense of not teaching the existence of a supreme creator god or depending on any supreme being for salvation or enlightenment. The Buddha is merely a guide and teacher who points the way to enlightenment, however the struggle for enlightenment is one’s own. While certain Mahayana texts do present a picture of the Buddha close to conceptions of godhead, it differs in that anyone can become a Buddha, as compared to general theistic religions in which it is generally considered impossible to become a god or God.
The closest thing to ‘gods’ in Buddhism are the superhuman devas, but even then they are still inferior to buddhas or ‘awakened’ beings in that they are still bound by kilesa and are thus still bound under the cycle of saṃsāra. Not to mention that unlike conventional ‘gods’, devas are not immortal (they live for very long but finite periods of time), did and do not create or shape the world, are beings who came into existence based upon their past karmas (like everybody else according to Buddhism), are not omniscient nor omnipotent nor morally perfect, and are not to be taken as a refuge as no deva can show the way of escape from saṃsāra or control one’s rebirth - these honors are reserved for the Three Jewels: Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha.

By the way, the one who talked about killing the Buddha when meeting him is not Siddharta, but the founder of the Rinzai school of Chan/Zen Buddhism (one of three schools of Chan/Zen in Japanese Buddhism), Linji (Japanese: Rinzai). Linji was actually quite well-known for discourses that were unconventional and iconoclastic, which he did to encourage his students to free themselves from the influence of masters and doctrinal concepts, in order to be able to better discover their own Buddha-nature. Two examples of his teaching are:

Those who have fulfilled the ten stages of bodhisattva practice are no better than hired field hands; those who have attained the enlightenment of the fifty-first and fifty-second stages are prisoners shackled and bound; arhats and pratyekabuddhas are so much filth in the latrine; bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys.

Followers of the Way [of Chán], if you want to get the kind of understanding that accords with the Dharma, never be misled by others. Whether you’re facing inward or facing outward, whatever you meet up with, just kill it! If you meet a buddha, kill the buddha. If you meet a patriarch, kill the patriarch. If you meet an arhat, kill the arhat. If you meet your parents, kill your parents. If you meet your kinfolk, kill your kinfolk. Then for the first time you will gain emancipation, will not be entangled with things, will pass freely anywhere you wish to go.
 
The Buddha tried asceticism. It doesn’t work. It is one of the two extremes that are to be avoided. Buddhism is the Middle Way between the extremes of sensual indulgence and asceticism.

Here is the Buddha when he tried asceticism:

http://www.livius.org/a/pakistan/taxila/skinny_buddha.JPG

rossum
Good example of Greco-Buddhist art there.

Just to complement your post with something that’s admittedly a bit unrelated, but what many people in the West call the ‘Fat Buddha’ or ‘Laughing Buddha’ isn’t a depiction of Siddharta at all, but the Chinese folkloric deity Budai (Japanese: Hotei). I’m not aware of anything that says the Buddha (or any other Buddha) is obese! 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top