Is Jesus Actually Buddha?

[PazzoGrande]

Though I would prefer a more patient and understanding language on this board, people are trying to tell you that there is no need to “try to refute it” because the theory has no legs. It’s simply one of those religious conspiracy theories, like Ancient Aliens or that Jesus studied yoga, that doesn’t need to be refuted.

Yeah. Seriously, the Buddha died 400 years before Jesus was born. Doesn’t that suffice as proof that it has no legs whatsoever?

Still I heard people before claiming “Some people say Buddha and Jesus were the same person.” It’s always “Some people say.” I hear it from people you’d expect to be too smart to pass this nonsense on. They aren’t like the OP who wisely asked for viewpoints. Rather they pass it on like it’s a viable theory. It isn’t. It’s just dumb.

 

[CaptFun]

I was answering the question “Is Jesus Actually Buddha” and came to the same conclusion you did. OK. I was dismissive - and light-hearted concerning the QUESTION. Not Buddhism. Although BECAUSE I also “don’t equate Our Lord with Buddha” - I don’t equate the Church Jesus founded with the … teachings … organization …whatever it is that’s centered around Buddha.

Maybe I WILL read more about Guatama Buddha. I even alluded to people doing so further in my post.

I adopted a light-hearted ending to my post too. But my statement about the “whole faith” came at the end.

What is good in Buddhism we hold in common with it. We should always offer them Jesus in love.

Sentimentally I like to adopt the Angels’ blessing to the shepherds on that first Christmas
“Peace to all men of good will …”

Certainly the Holy Spirit was not without power to inspire whom He would at any time.

And if Buddha or Confucius or Zoroaster - not to mention Qoheleth, Solomon, and Jesus son of Sirach in the OT - have pearls of wisdom (that have GOD written all over them - like the Golden Rule) to offer, we’d be foolish to cast such pearls aside.

The Moral Equivalence temptation I’ve had (well meaning but …) was to hope that Muhammed was just a do-it-yourself Catholic without a printing press Bible, living in an area ruled by pagan polytheists where the far away Pope held no sway and the “Christians” he was likely to meet were Monotheists who rejected the Trinity.

And that subsequent war lords (who are not considered “The Prophet” even by Muslims)
dinked with his writings to better lead jihads and forced conversions to their own new Religion. Y’see THAT way we could all be together. Nice sentiment. And since Jesus died for ALL - that “being together” in heaven thing oughtta be done here on earth as much as possible.

As Buddhists seem “peaceful” and “meditative” to me - sorry for any stereotyping here, at least its not NEGATIVE stereotyping -

“Muslims” seem very “dedicated to prayer,” and almsgiving. They have a “creed” (Sunnis anyway) and make pilgrimages (to Mecca, the hajj) and have doctrines that must be accepted (Mohammed as “The Prophet”) < based on things which the Catholics were doing first - novel doctrines aside. They have no priesthood or Pope or teaching office (like the Baptists!).

They even “honor Jesus” as “a prophet” though denying He was crucified and rose.

But our wanting to be good neighbors and friends with folks who for no fault of their own were born into … other than Catholic families … by God’s mysterious plan; shouldn’t ever tempt us to cast Jesus aside – like a trendy parish’s tabernacle.

Rather we should teach the nations by our Holy Spirit filled loving example and hopefully meet in heaven … where all of us will no longer see “darkly … as through a glass” but see God face to face.

We (Catholics, Christians) CAN learn things from other peoples. And should when it is good. But our call is also to share the truth we have.

 

[CaptFun]

The Buddha also fasted. Your sources have been misleading you. The Buddha was born into luxury, but found it unsatisfactory. He then tried extreme asceticism, and found that also to be unsatisfactory:

http://www.azibaza.com/lecture/images/Image-03.jpg

Then he tried the Middle Way, between the two extremes, and found enlightenment.

rossum

Hi Rossum. Thanks for posting this picture. Can’t blame my sources. Some of what you said came back to me re: Buddha. Mine was a very cursory study of him if even that.

In FACT it was the PICTURES of the two that formed such a stark contrast in my mind.

For some reason I’d never seen THIS kind of a representation of Gautama. Usually he is pictured placidly meditating, smiling, and with a VERY ample belly (the very epitome of prosperity). Jesus on the cross is suffering the horrors of martyrdom in the moments when He sacrificed His life (not for his personal enlightenment) but so that after our long human journey on earth we could rest with Him, our deceased loved ones, and our loved ones to come - in heaven for all eternity.

To tell you the truth, I personally probably look a lot more like the “ample bellied Buddha” statues than the Christ pictured on the cross these days. I’d rather peacefully meditate than sacrifice my life too. And I … may not have missed TOO many meals in MY life.

Even in Christianity there is a temptation towards “prosperity Gospels” or interpretations; and seeking a life of self-absorbed pleasure. The “chubby Buddha” statues so often seen
kind of go along with that philosophy. So I REALLY enjoyed seeing your artwork post depicting Buddha fasting (a sacrifice). I hadn’t seen many of those, and if I had, I wouldn’t presume it was Buddha!

In your examples it looks like the Buddha was “seeking” … and I hope he “found” and is in heaven now. He didn’t have Jesus Christ or his example to guide his search like we do.
But the Spirit goes where it will … and calls us all to become more, love one another, and be led to the heart of our most loving GOD!

Jesus did make exclusive claims and put forth a theology that differs in many ways from
the ancient “seekers”. And I believe in Him. Whatever fruitful thing I might pick up from
Buddha or others would be frosting on the cake. Not the eternal banquet.

DANG! Back to food again. Maybe I should break for LUNCH!

 

[CaptFun]

I suppose I was just demonstrating that I actually DO think about other “peoples of faith” after you got the impression I was belittling Buddhism (and Buddha and Buddhists).

I did expand the topic. But most of the other posters have too strictly speaking.

Is Jesus Actually Buddha? < It’s sort of a “Yes” or “No” proposition.

“No” is to the point – but a pretty short and boring answer to sustain a thread on.

My confusing switching of moods from jest to seriousness notwithstanding - I didn’t want to leave the impression I had contempt for Buddhism. I consider all people to be made in the image of God and invited to heaven (via Jesus Christ).

Since I was addressing a personal question - I thought I’d reveal my “open-minded to a fault” sentimentality that almost approaches religious equivalence or indifference when I’m not careful. Good intentions unchecked can go too far. I did bring MY rationalizations about Islam into the conversation (with many a tedious detail I fear!) in a kind of wishful “Can’t we all … just … get along” spirit that is more fanciful than practical.

Maybe I took the SPIRIT of the thread differently. It looked like someone liked both Jesus and Buddha and enjoyed supposin’ - in the interest of unity and charity between peoples maybe?

 

[CaptFun]

Re: Is Jesus Actually Buddha?

Is this question presupposing reincarnation or rebirth being the case here?

My answer is still No. But … is there anything in Christianity that even gets *in the neighborhood of *reincarnation or rebirth teachings?

Closest I can get off the top of my head (and close doesn’t mean the same as) is the scripture where Elijah was to come back before the Messiah appeared. Jesus said this was fulfilled in John the Baptist who came “in the spirit of Elijah”.

On the Mount of Transfiguration – and after John had been beheaded – Elijah is seen as himself along with Moses and Jesus. Elijah’s head was presumably still on his shoulders wheras John’s was … gone by that time. And the apostles would have recognized John … whom they knew.

So … the question in a similar vein “Was John the Baptist Actually Elijah” - looks like
a no as well. John said he was not Elijah. Scripture says he came in the “spirit and power of Elijah” and John dressed in a way reminiscent of him. Jesus said Elijah had already come … “and they did with him what they liked” alluding to John perhaps, but never saying they were one in the same or that John was a reincarnation or a rebirth of Elijah.

Was “Our Lady of Guadaloupe” Actually Mary, Mother of Jesus? Interesting. Catholics wouldn’t call it reincarnation though if so.

 

[rossum]

For some reason I’d never seen THIS kind of a representation of Gautama. Usually he is pictured placidly meditating, smiling, and with a VERY ample belly (the very epitome of prosperity).

I suspect that you are mixing up two different types of Buddha images; a common mistake. The standard Indian-style meditating Shakyamuni Buddha is neither fat nor thin:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

There is a common Chinese image of the Maitreya Buddha (the future Buddha) who is fat, and called Budai (Chinese) or Hotei (Japanese):

http://nscolorsofthemountain.wikispaces.com/file/view/fatbuddha.gif/30637839/fatbuddha.gif

rossum

 

[meltzerboy]

Yeah, there are some pretty big differences in the points of view. The Buddha, though wise, taught a way of avoiding suffering through detachment, whereas Christianity, especially Catholicism, sees suffering very differently. Christ accepted suffering as, in my view, He knew we ourselves would experience it.

The list goes on and on. I think we as Christians agree with Buddhists on many things and I have always been welcomed by Tibetans, for instance, but theologically speaking, we’re very different.

Buddhism is also theologically quite different from Judaism. One of the main differences is the detachment of self from the world focused on in Buddhism, which is just the opposite in Judaism. The latter believes that the self should become immersed in the world and make every attempt to better it. There is also no self-renunciation in Judaism.

 

[CaptFun]

I suspect that you are mixing up two different types of Buddha images; a common mistake. The standard Indian-style meditating Shakyamuni Buddha is neither fat nor thin:

http://i1112.photobucket.com/albums/k488/sqacct7/AuthorPhotos/Buddha.jpg

There is a common Chinese image of the Maitreya Buddha (the future Buddha) who is fat, and called Budai (Chinese) or Hotei (Japanese):

http://nscolorsofthemountain.wikispaces.com/file/view/fatbuddha.gif/30637839/fatbuddha.gif

rossum

Not a question of “mixed up” really - it’s just that the artwork you posted - I’d have recognized the bottom one as “oh, that’s Buddha!” immediately - although the mass produced statues I see enshrined in some of the (Buddhist owned?) businesses here in Orange County, CA are a little less extremely roly poly.

The “middle way” version statue (top) I’d have recognized as having been from an Eastern (to us) culture, but I might have had to have been told “that’s a statue of the Buddha”. < Versus just a statue of a sedate, dignified man. Here of course I recognized Buddha from the place and context. Thanks for the “enlightenment”! < (Me being “too clever by half” again).

Thanks for taking the time and effort Rossum.

Depictions of Jesus vary too now that I think of it, though the variation is not as much as
these two examples. Your explanation of the various stages of Gautama’s life makes this more understandable. With Jesus the biggest variations of artwork have to do with age (baby Jesus) and event (Jesus NOT on a crucifix).

 

[rossum]

The “middle way” version statue (top) I’d have recognized as having been from an Eastern (to us) culture, but I might have had to have been told “that’s a statue of the Buddha”.

Not as “eastern” as you may think. It is from Gandhara, and is heavily influenced by Greek models from when the area was conquered by Alexander the Great. The ‘thin Buddha’ I posted was also from Gandhara.

Thanks for taking the time and effort Rossum.

Not a problem.

rossum

 

[Gaber]

…
Thanks for taking the time and effort Rossum. …

Ditto.

 

[jinc1019]

Interestingly, I found a book on this very subject which suggests that the reason Jesus and Buddha are so similar is because the both derived their teachings from another source; namely the Old Testament. In this book, the author looks at the teachings of Buddha and compares them to the Solomon of the Old Testament and the simalarities are quite striking…Solomon lived roughly 500 years before Buddha and numerous Jewish merchants had settled in India by the time of Buddha and this author suggests Buddha took these teachings, fused them with some Hindu teachings, and created Buddhism. Very, very interesting and well-written. It’s called “Jesus and Buddha: Could Solomon Be the Missing Link”

 

[Gaber]

Interestingly, I found a book on this very subject which suggests that the reason Jesus and Buddha are so similar is because the both derived their teachings from another source; namely the Old Testament. In this book, the author looks at the teachings of Buddha and compares them to the Solomon of the Old Testament and the simalarities are quite striking…Solomon lived roughly 500 years before Buddha and numerous Jewish merchants had settled in India by the time of Buddha and this author suggests Buddha took these teachings, fused them with some Hindu teachings, and created Buddhism. Very, very interesting and well-written. It’s called “Jesus and Buddha: Could Solomon Be the Missing Link”

I’d look a bit deeper, nqmely at what the source of the teaching of all three is. I’m betting that they look like they refer to each other because they all refer to the same non-personal Source.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I read over Buddhism back then a long time ago, and while Buddha is both an interesting and in my opinion, one of the early pagans who truly understand the concept of God, I disagree with the Jesus-Buddha synthesis. It’s just too simplistic to put the two together just because they have some messages that are similar. If Muhammad also preach about peace and love, shall we say Muhammad is another Christ? Or if Joseph Smith preach about harmony and brotherhood, is he the prophesied Buddha? The similarities could be just coincidental. Scholarly speaking it’s because Jesus and Buddha both experience and understand the nature of suffering and the fragility of life that inspires them both to preach their messages. Religiously, Buddha could have been one of those rare men like Plato or Aristotle, ancient pagans who understand the true spiritual properties of God, and Christ is simply the philosophies and messages manifested in flesh, that is in Christian terminology, “the Word”.

 

[Gaber]

I read over Buddhism back then a long time ago, and while Buddha is both an interesting and in my opinion, one of the early pagans who truly understand the concept of God, I disagree with the Jesus-Buddha synthesis. It’s just too simplistic to put the two together just because they have some messages that are similar. If Muhammad also preach about peace and love, shall we say Muhammad is another Christ? Or if Joseph Smith preach about harmony and brotherhood, is he the prophesied Buddha? The similarities could be just coincidental. Scholarly speaking it’s because Jesus and Buddha both experience and understand the nature of suffering and the fragility of life that inspires them both to preach their messages. Religiously, Buddha could have been one of those rare men like Plato or Aristotle, ancient pagans who understand the true spiritual properties of God, and Christ is simply the philosophies and messages manifested in flesh, that is in Christian terminology, “the Word”.

That is a reasonable argument, especially the last line. Neverthelss, upon exmination, The Buddha’s and the Christ’s authority came form Union with God. That could be laid out much more specifically, but I’ll leave it to any interested to explore the natue of that commonality between the two. The way They were presented may well have been a necessary adaptation to the cycle of hisotry in which they appeared. If you explore that as well, in conjunction with the Two, it will be noticed that it is almost impossible for us in this day and age to take in the astonishing differences in culture then and now. Remember, Jesus appeared at a time and place where it would be natural to think that things had to get better after death, as they were so horrible on Earth during th ime and later for the ordinary person.

 

[jinc1019]

I read over Buddhism back then a long time ago, and while Buddha is both an interesting and in my opinion, one of the early pagans who truly understand the concept of God, I disagree with the Jesus-Buddha synthesis. It’s just too simplistic to put the two together just because they have some messages that are similar. If Muhammad also preach about peace and love, shall we say Muhammad is another Christ? Or if Joseph Smith preach about harmony and brotherhood, is he the prophesied Buddha? The similarities could be just coincidental. Scholarly speaking it’s because Jesus and Buddha both experience and understand the nature of suffering and the fragility of life that inspires them both to preach their messages. Religiously, Buddha could have been one of those rare men like Plato or Aristotle, ancient pagans who understand the true spiritual properties of God, and Christ is simply the philosophies and messages manifested in flesh, that is in Christian terminology, “the Word”.

I understand what you are arguing here, but all the examples you cited…such as Joseph Smith and Muhammad, said and wrote everything they did with a complete understanding of both Christianity and Judaism…so it makes sense that their messages would be somewhat similar…This is not the same thing as Buddha who, according to their tradition, came up with all of his teachings through meditation and tapping into nirvana.

 

[jinc1019]

That is a reasonable argument, especially the last line. Neverthelss, upon exmination, The Buddha’s and the Christ’s authority came form Union with God. That could be laid out much more specifically, but I’ll leave it to any interested to explore the natue of that commonality between the two. The way They were presented may well have been a necessary adaptation to the cycle of hisotry in which they appeared. If you explore that as well, in conjunction with the Two, it will be noticed that it is almost impossible for us in this day and age to take in the astonishing differences in culture then and now. Remember, Jesus appeared at a time and place where it would be natural to think that things had to get better after death, as they were so horrible on Earth during th ime and later for the ordinary person.

Interesting thought on the matter…

 

[jinc1019]

Interestingly, I found a book on this very subject which suggests that the reason Jesus and Buddha are so similar is because the both derived their teachings from another source; namely the Old Testament. In this book, the author looks at the teachings of Buddha and compares them to the Solomon of the Old Testament and the simalarities are quite striking…Solomon lived roughly 500 years before Buddha and numerous Jewish merchants had settled in India by the time of Buddha and this author suggests Buddha took these teachings, fused them with some Hindu teachings, and created Buddhism. Very, very interesting and well-written. It’s called “Jesus and Buddha: Could Solomon Be the Missing Link”

Also, to update my above quote, while I do find the book to be very plausible on its face, I am wondering now how likely this scenario is given that many people don’t attribute Wisdom to Solomon or Psalms to David, etc.

 

[Gaber]

Also, to update my above quote, while I do find the book to be very plausible on its face, I am wondering now how likely this scenario is given that many people don’t attribute Wisdom to Solomon or Psalms to David, etc.

Iwonder if it matters if wisdom is attributed to persons if one doesn’t fundamentally attribute Wisdom to realization of its Source. I continue to claim that similarities in teaching, wisdom, statements, even myths and parables all stem not from referencing each other, but from referencing what leads to the statement that we are all made in the image and likeness of God. The operative word is ALL. So we all necessarily, at root, have the same referent. So why is there either surprise or controversy about the similarites of wisdom teachings??? It’s kind of like the local high school claiming that they have the One True Team!

 

[jinc1019]

Iwonder if it matters if wisdom is attributed to persons if one doesn’t fundamentally attribute Wisdom to realization of its Source. I continue to claim that similarities in teaching, wisdom, statements, even myths and parables all stem not from referencing each other, but from referencing what leads to the statement that we are all made in the image and likeness of God. The operative word is ALL. So we all necessarily, at root, have the same referent. So why is there either surprise or controversy about the similarites of wisdom teachings??? It’s kind of like the local high school claiming that they have the One True Team!

So you are suggesting then that humanity is born with this knowledge in their DNA and are then able to produce this on their own, or that God has divinely inspired all these authors, including Buddha, so it is no surprise their beliefs and teachings are so similar?

 

[Spirithound]

Also, can someone actually explain why quotes from Buddha and Jesus are so similar? That was another reason I started this dialogue. I read a theory there may be a connection between Soloman and Buddha, suggesting that Buddha derived a lot of his beliefs from Jews who settled in India.

First rule of internet theology: verify your interlocutor’s claims. Have you read the source material?