Buddha and Christ - Convergent or Divergent?

Christ and Buddha are arguably amongst a small handful of men who have had the most influence on humanity over the last two thousand years. Let’s consider Their lives and Teachings. These two men have brought teachings that have profoundly shaped the moral, spiritual and intellectual lives of millions who have followed their Teachings. However some would argue they exemplify two irreconcilably different paradigms, Abrahamic and Dharmic. So have these Great Educators brought spiritual paths that are so divergent that they can’t be reconciled. On the other hand with some closer attention to what we know of their teachings, the historic circumstances from which they have emerged, and how their teachings have evolved through the centuries perhaps they are much more similar than different. Can we have a convergence of two very different traditions or are they irreconcilably divergent?

Comments and questions as you will.

adrian009 said:

Christ and Buddha are arguably amongst a small handful of men who have had the most influence on humanity over the last two thousand years. Let’s consider Their lives and Teachings. These two men have brought teachings that have profoundly shaped the moral, spiritual and intellectual lives of millions who have followed their Teachings. However some would argue they exemplify two irreconcilably different paradigms, Abrahamic and Dharmic. So have these Great Educators brought spiritual paths that are so divergent that they can’t be reconciled. On the other hand with some closer attention to what we know of their teachings, the historic circumstances from which they have emerged, and how their teachings have evolved through the centuries perhaps they are much more similar than different. Can we have a convergence of two very different traditions or are they irreconcilably divergent?

Comments and questions as you will.

Click to expand...

They are divergent.

While you can probably identify a handful of loose similarities, overall they are very different. Jesus was an eschatological preacher and a clear product of a particular time and place.

As you known I don't believe in the false dichotomy of so-called "Abrahamic" and so-called "Dharmic" paths.

The historical Yeshua teaches a tantric type of mystic instruction to his direct disciples just like Gautama Buddha did. Both their teachings are about self-realisation or self-emancipation.

The teachings of the christian church in the gospels and other writings of the New Testament are much less tantric and they distort the Yeshua of the original teachings and turn him into the much more iconic Christ Jesus.

Since your poll is about Christ rather than the historical Yeshua, I cannot answer it. Buddha was a historical figure, Christ is not.

adrian009 said:

On the other hand with some closer attention to what we know of their teachings

Click to expand...

Buddha and Yeshua both taught similarly; it is the religions that were created around them that taught differently.

Both taught selflessness, to seek enlightenment, that Works/Karma lead to salvation, that none attachment leads to the Divine, to meditate, give up wealth, to work toward Oneness as the ultimate goal.

• There is no self or to hate the self (psyche).
• Live a life serving others.
• They both use the word heart contextually to mean soul.
• Both teach that enlightenment is within us.
• Both teach to meditate on the infinite consciousness.
• Both break down the previous religious misunderstandings, and ask people to question.
• They both taught the golden rule, 'do unto others as you wish done unto you'.
• Both taught not to strike back those who strike you.
• Not to judge.
• Love your enemies.
• Overcome hate with love.
• More blessed to give than to receive.
• Avoid being religious for show.
• Both taught the Way (Dharma).
  
• etc...

In my opinion.

adrian009 said:

Christ and Buddha are arguably amongst a small handful of men who have had the most influence on humanity over the last two thousand years. Let’s consider Their lives and Teachings. These two men have brought teachings that have profoundly shaped the moral, spiritual and intellectual lives of millions who have followed their Teachings. However some would argue they exemplify two irreconcilably different paradigms, Abrahamic and Dharmic. So have these Great Educators brought spiritual paths that are so divergent that they can’t be reconciled. On the other hand with some closer attention to what we know of their teachings, the historic circumstances from which they have emerged, and how their teachings have evolved through the centuries perhaps they are much more similar than different. Can we have a convergence of two very different traditions or are they irreconcilably divergent?

Comments and questions as you will.

Click to expand...

The key to understanding the seeming paradox is to understand that the original man, Yeshua, was a man of the East, a Nazarene, a sect of the Essenes whose teachings were breath-based as were those of the Buddha and of the Hindu yogis. Yeshua was a mystic. His teachings did not include blood sacrifice. That doctrine was overwritten onto his original teachings, and which were introduced by Paul and Rome from the pagan blood based religion of Mithraism in order to lure the pagans into Paul's new religion*. 'Jesus' is the myth born of this marriage of pagan and original teachings. So the Bible still has some of Yeshua's original teachings sticking out here and there amongst the pagan doctrines. See here for more explanations:

Paul and the Mystery Religions

*The Church did much the same thing in Mexico when it 'adopted' Tonantzin, the Aztec goddess of fertility, and transformed her into Our Lady of Guadalupe Hidalgo, as a clever means to convert some 2 million indigenous Indios into Catholicism. Of course, the Indios simply followed where their beloved deity now dwelt.

adrian009 said:

Christ and Buddha are arguably amongst a small handful of men who have had the most influence on humanity over the last two thousand years. Let’s consider Their lives and Teachings. These two men have brought teachings that have profoundly shaped the moral, spiritual and intellectual lives of millions who have followed their Teachings. However some would argue they exemplify two irreconcilably different paradigms, Abrahamic and Dharmic. So have these Great Educators brought spiritual paths that are so divergent that they can’t be reconciled. On the other hand with some closer attention to what we know of their teachings, the historic circumstances from which they have emerged, and how their teachings have evolved through the centuries perhaps they are much more similar than different. Can we have a convergence of two very different traditions or are they irreconcilably divergent?

Comments and questions as you will.

Click to expand...

Hello. I just wanted to plug a book that addresses this question in a way, ' Living Buddha, Living Christ', by that wise Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh :

Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh | PenguinRandomHouse.com

I found the book very enlightening, in many ways, when I started out on my spiritual journey.

My answer to your question would tend towards 'convergent' though ultimately more asymptotically so, never quite merging.

Peace

Marcion said:

As you known I don't believe in the false dichotomy of so-called "Abrahamic" and so-called "Dharmic" paths.

The historical Yeshua teaches a tantric type of mystic instruction to his direct disciples just like Gautama Buddha did. Both their teachings are about self-realisation or self-emancipation.

The teachings of the christian church in the gospels and other writings of the New Testament are much less tantric and they distort the Yeshua of the original teachings and turn him into the much more iconic Christ Jesus.

Since your poll is about Christ rather than the historical Yeshua, I cannot answer it. Buddha was a historical figure, Christ is not.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your response.

What evidence is there to conclude Yeshua taught a tantric type of mysticism?

Do the gospels not emphasise self-realisation and self-emancipation through the teaching of 'the way'.

John 3:3-12

Mark 4

Matthew 13:9-13

Augustus said:

While you can probably identify a handful of loose similarities, overall they are very different. Jesus was an eschatological preacher and a clear product of a particular time and place.

Click to expand...

Didn't Buddha's teachings reflect a reaction to the time He emerged?

The parable of the arrow for example speaks against excessive metaphysical speculation and encourages a more practical approach with the eightfold noble path.

Parable of the Poisoned Arrow - Wikipedia

The Buddha taught us that to attain an exalted station (enlightenment) that is difficult to reach, and to share with others what we have learnt. We breath in as we learn, and we exhale as we teach to others.

So Buddha like Jesus had reached a stage of perfect understanding. Like Jesus He wished for His Teachings to reach the whole world.

Jesus taught that 'The truth shall set you free' John 8:32 as enlightenment through the Buddha's Teachings could freeus from suffering.


1. As already explained, people always yield to their worldly passions, repeating sin after sin, and carry burdens of intolerable acts, unable of their own wisdom or of their own strength to break these habits of greed and indulgence. If they are unable to overcome and remove worldly passions, how can they expect to realize their true nature of Buddhahood?

Buddha, who thoroughly understood human nature, had great sympathy for men and made a vow that He would do everything possible, even at the cost of great hardship to Himself, to relieve them of their fears and sufferings. To effect this relief He manifested himself as a Bodhisattva in the immemorable past and made the following ten vows:


(a) "Thought I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until everyone in my land is certain of entering Buddhahood and gaining Enlightenment."


(b) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until my affirming light reaches all over the world."


(c) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until my life endures through the ages and saves innumerable numbers of people."


(d) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until all the Buddhas in the ten directions unite in praising my name."


(e) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people with sincere faith endeavor to be reborn in my land by repeating my name in sincere faith ten times and actually do succeed in this rebirth."


(f) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people everywhere determine to attain Enlightenment, practice virtues, sincerely wish to be born in my land; thus, I shall appear at the moment of their death with a great company of Bodhisattvas to welcome them into my Pure Land."


(g) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never by complete until people everywhere, hearing my name, think of my land and wish to be born there and, to that end, sincerely plant seeds of virtue, and are thus able to accomplish all to their hearts' desire."


(h) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until all those who are born in my Pure Land are certain to attain Buddhahood, so that they may lead many others to Enlightenment and to the practice of great compassion."

(i) "Though I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people all over the world are influenced by my spirit of loving compassion that will purify their minds and bodies and lift them above the things of the world."


(j) "Thought I attain Buddhahood, I shall never be complete until people everywhere, hearing my name, learn right ideas about life and death, and gain that perfect wisdom that will keep their minds pure and tranquil in the midst of the world's greed and suffering."


"Thus I make these vows; may I not attain Buddhahood until they are fulfilled. May I become the source of unlimited Light, freeing and radiating the treasures of my wisdom and virtue, enlightening all lands and emancipating all suffering people."

http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/theteachingofbuddha.pdf
p102 -104

Beneath the sala trees at Kusinagara, in his last words to his disciples, the Buddha said:


"Make of yourself a light. Rely upon yourself: do not depend upon anyone else. Make my teachings your light. Rely upon them: do not depend upon any other teaching. Consider your body: Think of its impurity. Knowing that both its pain and its delight are alike causes of suffering, how can you indulge in its desires? Consider your 'self'; think of its transiency; how can you fall into delusion about it and cherish pride and selfishness, knowing that they must all end in inevitable suffering? Consider all substances; can you find among them any enduring 'self'? Are they not all aggregates that sooner or later will break apart and be scattered? Do not be confused by the universality of suffering, but follow my teaching, even after my death, and you will be rid of pain. Do this and you will indeed be my disciples."


2. "My disciples, the teachings that I have given you are never to be forgotten or abandoned. They are always to be treasured, they are to be thought about, they are to be practiced. If you follow these teachings you will always be happy.

http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/theteachingofbuddha.pdf
p 10 - 11


When we take the historical-realistic perspective, the Buddha became an arahant. However, though being an arahant, he was what we might call "an arahant with differences"; he was, moreover not simply an arahant with a few incidental differences, but an arahant whose differences eventually elevated him to a distinct level, the Bhagavā, a world teacher, one who towered above all the other arahants. These differences opened the door, so to speak, to the "cosmic-metaphysical perspective" on the Buddha as a way to understand what accounted for these differences. Once this door was opened up, the Buddha was viewed as the one who brought to consummation the long bodhisattva career extending over countless eons, in which he sacrificed himself in various ways, many times, for the good of others: this is the cosmic aspect of that perspective. Again, he was viewed as the one who arrived at ultimate truth, the Tathāgata who has come from Suchness (tathā + āgata) and gone to Suchness (tathā + gata), and yet who abides nowhere: this is the metaphysical aspect of that perspective. This cosmic-metaphysical perspective then became characteristic of the Mahāyāna.

Arahants, Bodhisattvas, and Buddhas

Clearly there are different ways to view the Buddha as some Mahayana Buddhists do. Wasn't Christ also a great teacher of the world?

adrian009 said:

Christ and Buddha are arguably amongst a small handful of men who have had the most influence on humanity over the last two thousand years. Let’s consider Their lives and Teachings. These two men have brought teachings that have profoundly shaped the moral, spiritual and intellectual lives of millions who have followed their Teachings. However some would argue they exemplify two irreconcilably different paradigms, Abrahamic and Dharmic. So have these Great Educators brought spiritual paths that are so divergent that they can’t be reconciled. On the other hand with some closer attention to what we know of their teachings, the historic circumstances from which they have emerged, and how their teachings have evolved through the centuries perhaps they are much more similar than different. Can we have a convergence of two very different traditions or are they irreconcilably divergent?

Comments and questions as you will.

Click to expand...

cultures evolve and so must must address the river of life as it is and not as it was. so the outward appearance of a thing may change but the actions don't. the river continues to flow although it may appear to have changed.

Buddha is both father and mother to the people of the world. For sixteen months after a child is born the father and mother have to speak to him in babyish words; then gradually they teach him to speak as an adult. Like earthly parents, Buddha first takes care of the people and then leaves them to care for themselves. He first brings things to pass according to their desires and then He brings them to a peaceful and safe shelter.

What Buddha preaches in His language, people receive and assimilate in their own language as if it were intended exclusively for them.

Buddha's state of mind surpasses human thought; it can not be made clea r by words; it can only be hinted at in parables.

The Ganges River is stirred up by the tramping of horses and elephants and disturbed by the movements of fish and turtles; but the river flows on, pure and undisturbed by such trifles. Buddha is like the great river. The fish and turtles of other teachings swim about in its depths and push against its current, but in vain. Buddha's Dharma flows on, pure and undisturbed.

http://www.e4thai.com/e4e/images/pdf/theteachingofbuddha.pdf
p33-34

adrian009 said:

What evidence is there to conclude Yeshua taught a tantric type of mysticism?

Do the gospels not emphasise self-realisation and self-emancipation through the teaching of 'the way'.

Click to expand...

Tantric types of teaching are very practical and effective. They have very little if any kind of religious speculation (such as predictions of apocalyps). So wherever you find practical instructions about how to lead a life of spiritual progress or growth, that can be considered tantra.

If you study the tantric teachings of Yeshua without the later context of the gospels, it is easier (but by no means easy) to penetrate more deeply into their underlying meaning. The newer texts (outside of those original teachings) do not interact with the original teachings in the way that they were originally meant, so there is a breach line between the tantric content and the religious overlay in the gospel stories.

The Markan and Matthean texts you quote are in part copied from Q-lite (original teachings of Yeshua). In Matthew 13: 9-13 you can see the author clumsily mixes one Q-lite saying with another Q-lite saying showing that the author has no idea of the deeper meaning of the saying or he has no interest to know it and respect its original context.

In Mark 4: 11 the author of Mark is also copying from Q-lite.

This very important saying may have stood at the opening of the Q-lite saying collection explaining the reason for the secretive nature of the Q-lite instructions. aMark absorbed this saying into his story line and aMatthew and aLuke copied it (from gMark) only in its Markan context not bothering to give it another (double) place between other Q-lite sayings.

The author of John is a more mystic gospel writer who knew GMark, gMatthew and gLuke, so it is not surprising he was mining these gospels for his mystic vision of the gospel story. But he does not use the Q-lite saying collection and he also has no direct contact with the tantric-mystic content of the sayings collection.

Of course you can cherry-pick the more mystic parts of the texts and applaud the "unity" between the authors, but that would not be a fair assessment of what the authors of the gospels were trying to do. They wrote their own gospels because they did not like the outlook of earlier gospel writers and wanted to write an "improved" version of the gospel with a new "better" religious theology.

Q-lite is the most tantric text and the rest are more religious, less tantric texts that are not written in the spirit of the historical Yeshua.

I answered 'impossible to tell' because we actually know very little about either one. If you read how people describe them, there is a multiplicity of viewpoints, generally with each viewpoint claiming it is right. So who in the heck do you believe? Here are some of those I've read.
- Neither existed at all, fictional characters
- Wise men
- Studied in the east
- God on earth, avatar
- Messenger of God on earth
- Both a person and God
- saint, very wise guy
- a good liar who managed to get a following
- the same guy, but returned
- ideas, not people

However, for the very little I do know, which sort of combines all of the above, I would say it's more divergent than convergent. The reason I say this is because of the behaviours I've observed of the followers. For example, Budddhists I have met are generally very quiet people, calm, and unlikely to inform you, as I'm unlikely to discover they're Buddhist, unless they're in robes. Christians,OTOH, are far more likely to wear it on their sleeves, and I'm quite likely to find out about it.

adrian009 said:

Christ and Buddha are arguably amongst a small handful of men who have had the most influence on humanity over the last two thousand years.

Let’s consider Their lives and Teachings. These two men have brought teachings that have profoundly shaped the moral, spiritual and intellectual lives of millions who have followed their Teachings. However some would argue they exemplify two irreconcilably different paradigms, Abrahamic and Dharmic.

So have these Great Educators brought spiritual paths that are so divergent that they can’t be reconciled. On the other hand with some closer attention to what we know of their teachings, the historic circumstances from which they have emerged, and how their teachings have evolved through the centuries perhaps they are much more similar than different.

Can we have a convergence of two very different traditions or are they irreconcilably divergent?

Comments and questions as you will.

Click to expand...

Mornin'

I was going to put-I have no idea of what youre talking about- but I put more different than similar.

I say similar because Guatama Sidhartha and Jesus (wonders if he has a last name like Sidhartha?) had things in common given they are both human. In addition to ideally ten fingers and a pumping heart, they also shared their care for the people in their clan and culture who wish to follow Sidharthas interpretation of The Dhamma or Jesus dictation of Scriptural teachings of his father.

So, they both have teachings they want to share to their set of people and hope their teachings (Sidhartha) or their fathers teachings (jesus) would be used even after they die. They both share a sense of need for legacy and tradition.

Thats how they are simular: They want to help. The human condition. (flawed by mind vs flawed by spirit vs flawed by flesh but flawed regardless)

They both use analogies. Though Sidhartha uses them as the teachings themselves not in part like jesus so others wont know what hes talking about. Sidhartha used it as a teaching tools. Jesus not so much the teaching tool (blood is symbolic for crucifixtion) but literal (my blood-the one that ran down my side when they stabed me-will be the key to your salvation if you sacrifice your self as my father told me) Saints go by this a lot.

The Dharma doesnt teach scrifice in that manner symbolic or not. So thats another difference but they still have some sort of sacrifice. The thing is, the sacrifice Sidhartha talks about is not to believe in gods etc because they are delusions that lead people away from enlightement as opposed to jesus who says if you dont believe in god, then, well, you wont be enlightened (elightenment-christianity-born again)

You cant converge the two teachings, no. The teachings dont stand apart from culture so you can combine the external things: love, grace, sacrifice, etc, thats fine. Though you cant say god-doesnt-enlightened while a the same time believe he does. You cant say killing is wrong but believe in a person who your life is saved by his death. You cant have a messenger between god and man since Sidhartha never considered himself as part of The Dharma but just a regular person (not god nor incarnation nor divine) who was mentaly enlightened in order to share information already taught by his former teacher.

In other words, The Buddha wasnt the first to be enlightened. He the first. Just he is the first to find the right method of explaining it. His method stuck since. Tradition is heavy heavy in Dharmic Practice. Scripture is too vague to know whats a practice and whats a belief and whats analogy to let people think for themselves (Sidhartha: cough. apart from god).

Differences and diverage of two teachings isnt the end of the world. We dont need two suns to shine on one planet; we'd be toast. Let one sun have its planet and another sun be our own and so forth. Dont make all moons shift one earth and just accept that they have their place in one universe.

Differences and diverging isnt bad nor negative.

Let me ask, why do you feel this is so?

Why do you separate differences in one category and similarities in another?

Whats the dealio with differences and divergants. If you look at our geology of the planet, weve been converging and diveraging all throughout the earths history.

adrian009 said:

Didn't Buddha's teachings reflect a reaction to the time He emerged?

Click to expand...

I don't really know enough to comment but I would assume so.

@adrian009

A lot of things similar are things everyone can have regardless who they are and their worldview. It's not specific to a religion. For example, gratitude, love, and trust are among those traits not specific to religion. Sin. Rebirth. Is more specific to religion.

The main purpose of The Dharma from Siddhartha is ending rebirth. The Round of Rebirth: samsara (it's best to read it in full since it has multiple citations)

Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

— SN 15.3

Siddhartha teaches that we are reborn or come back into this life because we are attached to suffering. Suffering not meaning specific to pain and pain of spirit as in spirituality, but pain of birth as well as death. In christianity, there is no pain of birth and death because death is not important in comparison to salvation and union with god thereafter:

Salvation vs illusion
John 5:24 scripture teaches that death is not important (context) because once one dies they have eternal life with god. Not so with The Dharma of Siddhartha. He says instead, (I'll find the sutta later) that once we are reborn the last time we actually die because there is nothing left to be attached to. No divinity nor blissfulness. No suffering doesn't mean our flesh would be perfect. We still born, suffer, age, and die. We aren't attached to it.

Here is another: The Arrow

As he discerns the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, and escape from that feeling, no ignorance-obsession with regard to that feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain obsesses him.Sallatha Sutta: The Arrow

Christianity focuses on saving one from the results of suffering that seperates that person from god.

The Dharma focuses on ending suffering by changing ones mental state thereby, he still suffers (he isn't saved from it literally) but saved from the pain by his own effort not for anyone else. Another Romans 8:38-39. Siddhartha was never a Christian. If anything, he seperates himself from Brahma. So if you want to know the "god Siddhartha however existed" you need to know more about hinduism. But regardless, u like christianity, brahmas existences doesn't equal to his ability to relieve us from being reborn (Buddhist view)

The foundation of love etc from The Dharma is specific to our actions. Our actions not our faith is what changes our karma towards no rebirth. Scripture doesn't use works as a foundation for God connection but incorporates it with faith towards salvation (not understanding as in The Dharma) from death.

Also, metaphysically, christianity doesn't have many realms to which one is reborn as The Dharma.

These differences aren't bad they are just, well, different.

As for diverge, it depends on how you see it. I'd say they don't reflect each other. Though scripture sees itself as unique and makes divergence on its own. People die because of it on scripture and in real life. The Dharma isn't like that.

But anyone can compare the two religions and go by their positive attributes and still accept their detergent and different views at the same time.

adrian009 said:

Christ and Buddha are arguably amongst a small handful of men who have had the most influence on humanity over the last two thousand years. Let’s consider Their lives and Teachings. These two men have brought teachings that have profoundly shaped the moral, spiritual and intellectual lives of millions who have followed their Teachings. However some would argue they exemplify two irreconcilably different paradigms, Abrahamic and Dharmic. So have these Great Educators brought spiritual paths that are so divergent that they can’t be reconciled. On the other hand with some closer attention to what we know of their teachings, the historic circumstances from which they have emerged, and how their teachings have evolved through the centuries perhaps they are much more similar than different. Can we have a convergence of two very different traditions or are they irreconcilably divergent?

Comments and questions as you will.

Click to expand...

The difference could lie in the simple statement , "Thus I have heard"......

sayak83 said:

They are divergent.

Click to expand...

. . . by human interpretation.