Buddha and Jesus

[idav]

Yeah. I've read the Bible and reading the Pali and Suttras. So, those are my sources when referring to the differences between the two teachings. I honestly find it an insult to both parties to even consider they are under one umbrella. We can compare their teachings; but, in my humble opinion, to say The Buddha is a part of the teachings of the bible is well, well,

It's like comparing Christ to Mahummad. Not many Christians would see the comparison especially those who have read both the Quran and Bible. Yet, people argue that Allah is the same god as the Jews. From further study, they both believe in the god of Abraham but because they depict the god of Abraham so drastically different, how can one spiritually say they are from the same god? Historically, yes. Spiritually? Logically? No.

That's how I see it with Jesus' vs. Buddha's teachings. I guess people will do what they do. As long as there's no politics involved, I'm good.

From your perspective, isn't it safe to say that anyone can be a buddha, why is it that Jesus couldn't possibly be enlightened? Was he that wrong, is there like a test you can take where you need to get like a 90% correct to buddha scriptures? Or Jesus was just extremely smart but not quite enlightened because you have to read Buddhas teachings? What kind of gauge do we use to determine enlightened folks? Why do some Hindus think jesus and buddha were avatars if they were so different, and those are Dharma religions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This isn't a debate forum; and, I'm fasting from debating, so...

Jesus was not attached to the father. Jesus sought liberation through oneness with the supreme. If Buddhism is correct then Jesus certainly had potential to be enlightened and certainly was from his foundation in love. To me love the father means a love for everything, but at the same time claimed a need to detach from this world.

This is odd. Jesus was one with his father. To tell him he is not one with his father (attached to his father), is well, not part of Christianity. That oneness with the supreme being is a form of attachment. Whatever Jesus does, he cannot do without his father. It's dependency. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes, Jesus had a potential just as we all. Jesus chose to look to his father for his "enlightenment", if you like. So, that's contrary to what The Buddha taught.

Yes you can harp on the major difference, theism, and ignore the fact that the core wisdom was the same. As if a buddha can never have a wrong thought or be mistaken, that is not what Buddha taught. How the christians and muslims twist the gospels is another thing all together. The core of Jesus's theism was oneness and love, far from what monotheists typically practice.

The core of Jesus' teachings is to be one with his father through him. Oneness and love are the results of it, not a foundation.

I do not believe once The Buddha was enlightened he had a wrong thought. If that be the case, he had some attachment or delusion along the line and he would not be The Buddha nor a buddha.

Buddhism is about liberation of the mind.
Christianity is about salvation of the spirit.

Regardless if both end in compassion, oneness, love, and all the above, the foundations are different so their perspectives of each of these traits are different.

We have to recognize the diversity and uniqueness each religion has and stop combining faiths to make it a one-party system. The Church did this for years. Why reinvent the wheel?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's actually simple logic. However one wants to see and apply it spiritually is a different story.

From your perspective, isn't it safe to say that anyone can be a buddha, why is it that Jesus couldn't possibly be enlightened?

My perspective? Many Mahayana schools teach we are already Buddha's (Jesus included since he's human) and we cannot see our enlightenment because of delusions. Jesus wasn't enlightened because he had many attachments. The Buddha taught attachments bring disruption or blockage, I guess you can say, from liberation or enlightenment. A lot of people depend on physical things, ideas, et cetera for their spiritual well being. We can call it enlightenment in the general sense, but when defined from Buddhism, depending on these things, ideas, etc are contrary to what The Buddha taught.

That doesn't mean Jesus didn't have insight et cetera. It just means his practices and world view differ from The Buddha's. When we respect them both on their own terms, we don't have to talk about them under the same boat. Recognizing how differences enrich life is a goal humanity has yet to achieve.

Was he that wrong, is there like a test you can take where you need to get like a 90% correct to buddha scriptures?

The gospels says it. Jesus always pointed to his father. His father and him are one. And so on and so forth. Each prophet depended in god. The disciples depended on Christ. And so on and so forth.

I quote sutras in another post about non attachment and Buddhist teachings. It's complete opposite of what 99% of people in the Bible believed all because they were attached to an outside force or entity for their spiritual development. Historically and spiritually, The Buddha taught against that.

Or Jesus was just extremely smart but not quite enlightened because you have to read Buddhas teachings?

He wasn't enlightened according to Buddhist sutra definitions. Any other definition, is up for grabs. Has nothing to do with me. Just saying what I read and experienced from both religions.

What kind of gauge do we use to determine enlightened folks?

According to The Buddha's teachings (Theravada) we aren't enlightened and practicing to become enlightened. Mahayana says we have the seed of enlightenment in us but it's hard to see it due to delusions.

I honestly don't think anyone is fully enlightened. I choose to believe The Buddha was fully enlightened. However, time period and culture doesn't mean anything unless I know Jesus and The Buddha personally.

Why do some Hindus think jesus and buddha were avatars if they were so different, and those are Dharma religions.

I don't know about Hindu. That's something you'd have to ask Hindu since Buddhism spring off of them and have a different ungod-focused outlook on enlightenment in contrast to Hinduism.

 

[idav]

This isn't a debate forum; and, I'm fasting from debating, so...

I am well aware. This is a compartive forum which is what I've been doing despite any of your objections.

This is odd. Jesus was one with his father. To tell him he is not one with his father (attached to his father), is well, not part of Christianity.

Well there is scripture to support it, I wouldn't just say it.

The core of Jesus' teachings is to be one with his father through him. Oneness and love are the results of it, not a foundation.

Scripture say otherwise, Jesus says specifically love sums up the law.

I do not believe once The Buddha was enlightened he had a wrong thought. If that be the case, he had some attachment or delusion along the line and he would not be The Buddha nor a buddha.

Ok fair enough.

Regardless if both end in compassion, oneness, love, and all the above, the foundations are different so their perspectives of each of these traits are different.

Never would argue they are different religions but there are many different ways to practice christianity.

We have to recognize the diversity and uniqueness each religion has and stop combining faiths to make it a one-party system. The Church did this for years. Why reinvent the wheel?

Sure I recognize the diversity, again this is a comparative forum, specifically that of jesus and buddha as per the OP.

I don't have to reinvent the wheel, there have been plenty of wise enough philosophies to get us on the right path. I accept that Jesus certainly had some jewish bias, but I don't hold that against him, lol.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Just saying, I don't mind discussing this but I disagree on a lot of what you say and I don't have the energy and not in the right place to post scriptures and sutras for most my post to prove my point. This is not going by just reading. This is going by experience in both religions. Totally different perceptive.

Scripture say otherwise, Jesus says specifically love sums up the law.

Where does love and compassion come from?

Are you saying love and compassion came before the source of these things?

The Creator is the foundation of Abrahamic faith. Christ (His Passion) is the foundation of Christianity.

The results of creation and Christ's Passion that brings love, compassion, etc are just that. How can it be the other way around?

Sure I recognize the diversity, again this is a comparative forum, specifically that of jesus and buddha as per the OP.

I don't have to reinvent the wheel, there have been plenty of wise enough philosophies to get us on the right path. I accept that Jesus certainly had some jewish bias, but I don't hold that against him, lol.

Spiritually, it's fine. Historically and logically, the two religious outlooks don't match up.

 

[idav]

Just saying, I don't mind discussing this but I disagree on a lot of what you say and I don't have the energy and not in the right place to post scriptures and sutras for most my post to prove my point. This is not going by just reading. This is going by experience in both religions. Totally different perceptive.


Where does love and compassion come from?

Are you saying love and compassion came before the source of these things?

The Creator is the foundation of Abrahamic faith. Christ (His Passion) is the foundation of Christianity.

The results of creation and Christ's Passion that brings love, compassion, etc are just that. How can it be the other way around?



Spiritually, it's fine. Historically and logically, the two religious outlooks don't match up.

Christ turned the old testament upside down and pretty much told everyone how retarded they were being. Love is supposed to be the foundation not some guy in the sky telling us do this and jump this high.

Personally through my years of journeying through these religions I have found that Gnostic Christianity matches more with Mahayana Buddhism than it matches with Islam or Jehovah's Witness type theology. I've even taken those quizzes from this gnostic perspective and get 100% Mahayana, have for years now. The orthodox christianities slowly slipped to the bottom percentage wise. Not that I am a buddhist per se, but I certainly know how to answer the questions apparently. Gnostic Christianity however has never been on the list. I find the similarities very fascinating. Gnosis deals in knowledge as does Mahayana which is probably why there are striking similarities.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I liked a lot your description saying Buddha speaks to the mind and Christ, the heart. That's very profound. Also I admire your tolerance of other Faiths.

We Baha'is also strongly believe in unity in diversity and reject unity in uniformity.

“The garden which is pleasing to the eye and which makes the heart glad, is the garden in which are growing side by side flowers of every hue, form and perfume, and the joyous contrast of colour is what makes for charm and beauty.” (Abdul-Bahá'í)

But it's important how we view our diversity: As a source of beauty?

“The diversity in the human family should be the cause of love and harmony, as it is in music where many different notes blend together in the making of a perfect chord. (Abdul-Bahá'í)

Or as a reason for contention?

“Likewise, when you meet those whose opinions differ from your own, do not turn away your face from them. All are seeking truth, and there are many roads leading thereto. Truth has many aspects, but it remains always and forever one.

The Baha'i view embraces both our diversity and our unity and is explained by Baha'u'llah here which applies to all the great Teachers and Educators including Jesus and Buddha.

"Consider the sun. Were it to say now, “I am the sun of yesterday,” it would speak the truth. And should it, bearing the sequence of time in mind, claim to be other than that sun, it still would speak the truth. In like manner, if it be said that all the days are but one and the same, it is correct and true. And if it be said, with respect to their particular names and designations, that they differ, that again is true. For though they are the same, yet one doth recognize in each a separate designation, a specific attribute, a particular character."- Baha'u'llah

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'd agree to an extent. Gnostic Christianity has a better feel towards the mysticism part of Mahayana Buddhism. Many Buddhist would argue a lot of "gnostic schools of Buddhism" isn't real Buddhism. For example, Ten Tai believes that even plants have a Buddha-nature (or inherit seed of enlightenment).

Christ turned the old testament upside down and pretty much told everyone how retarded they were being. Love is supposed to be the foundation not some guy in the sky telling us do this and jump this high.

There are two sides to this, though. One is reverence to the person who gave love. One is to the love that person gave. Both are equally fine.

If my mother gave me a gift, why would I not tell her thank you. On the other hand, some people would receive a gift and be more concerned over the gift than the person who gave it. A lot of us tend to push away the latter for the former.

That is one thing I like about deism in many African faiths is that god is not intimately related to (no intermediary) creation. So, the gift my mother gives, I can cherish the gift without insulting on the person who gave it. If I believed in a god in an entity sense, it would be an impersonal god. It makes more sense because creation, spirits, etc become involved in the relationship with god.

Anyway, most Christians I know don't believe "the man in the sky." The way they express god as a person just means they are talking about a person Christ as god. To those who don't believe Christ as god, it's more about Christ's spirit. I don't know of any Christians who believe god as an entity.

 

[idav]

I'd agree to an extent. Gnostic Christianity has a better feel towards the mysticism part of Mahayana Buddhism. Many Buddhist would argue a lot of "gnostic schools of Buddhism" isn't real Buddhism. For example, Ten Tai believes that even plants have a Buddha-nature (or inherit seed of enlightenment).

Yeah thats pretty true. I had quite the debates with Buddhists about theism when I first came to the forum some years ago.

Anyway, most Christians I know don't believe "the man in the sky." The way they express god as a person just means they are talking about a person Christ as god. To those who don't believe Christ as god, it's more about Christ's spirit. I don't know of any Christians who believe god as an entity.

Granted but I can't help but feel a lot of folks follow laws just cause a book says so, not because there are valid reasons to follow a proposed law, which is the part I mentioned about, do this, jump this high.

 

[arthra]

It's like comparing Christ to Mahummad.

Carlita,

I think your home maybe more in the Religious Debate section...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita,

I think your home maybe more in the Religious Debate section...

Eh. I just have a more or stronger way express my points. In person and online. They usually arent debates but a lot of readers and listeners incorreclty interpret as such. Bothers the mess out of me.

But if we compared the two Jesus and The Buddha, they dont match if going by the bible and sutras. In a spiritual sense, we can use any teaching and find harmany in them. I have Buddhist morals but I dont practice Buddhism. Im all pagan. If I tried finding harmany between the two, paganism doesnt emphasis "right and wrong" practice unless its against ones community or culture and disrepsect of ones family. Buddhism, to compare, doesnt look at the supernatural in many pagan practices. So, Id find it wrong to combine the two.

I always wondered what is discussion and compare if we have to talk about the same beliefs and voice opinions without backing them up? How is it different than religious debates?

I took a fast from debates, so..

 

[David1967]

Some definite similarities . I recommend the book, 'Living Buddha, Living Christ', by Thich Nhat Hanh. A very humble monk with great respect for Christianity explores this subject.

 

[David1967]

Yes, Jesus had a potential just as we all. Jesus chose to look to his father for his "enlightenment", if you like. So, that's contrary to what The Buddha taught.

In Buddhism, Buddha became enlightened. According to Christianity, Jesus is enlightenment. Is that a fair statement?

 

[metis]

Some definite similarities . I recommend the book, 'Living Buddha, Living Christ', by Thich Nhat Hanh. A very humble monk with great respect for Christianity explores this subject.

Agreed-- an excellent book.

 

[metis]

But if we compared the two Jesus and The Buddha, they dont match if going by the bible and sutras. In a spiritual sense, we can use any teaching and find harmany in them. .

Good point, imo. Some of the important basics, imo, are the same or similar, but many of the details especially differ.

BTW, my "religious" approach is much closer to what one can find in dharma at the more general level than with any other set of religious teachings. However, I do not call myself a "Buddhist" because I'm way too skeptical about many teachings found in dharma. However, as you probably are aware of, Buddhism actually does allow for even my degree of skepticism.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Good point, imo. Some of the important basics, imo, are the same or similar, but many of the details especially differ.

BTW, my "religious" approach is much closer to what one can find in dharma at the more general level than with any other set of religious teachings. However, I do not call myself a "Buddhist" because I'm way too skeptical about many teachings found in dharma. However, as you probably are aware of, Buddhism actually does allow for even my degree of skepticism.

True. Yeah, The Buddha does say test the teacher. He says if you don't believe what the teacher (The Buddhas) say are correct, then the teachings cannot help one to enlightenment. Different schools have their spin on how they place The Buddha. Most Pali sutras I've read place him as a teacher. The Lotus Sutra (Mahayana) put him in a "savior" position.

Aren't you Jewish?

Everyone is so fluid in their religiousness on RF, it's had to keep track.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In Buddhism, Buddha became enlightened. According to Christianity, Jesus is enlightenment. Is that a fair statement?

The Buddha became enlightened with his own knowledge and understanding of the nature of life.

Jesus became enlightened with his Father's knowledge and understanding of the nature of life.

Both taught there was suffering.

The Buddha taught we end our own suffering by understanding the nature of life through our actions.

Jesus taught he ends suffering through his father by Christians understanding of His Father through the Father's Son.

The Buddha taught that to be enlightened, one must save others from suffering.

Christ taught that suffering and dying (literally and by action) are the highest means of sacrificing your life to your father as Christ did to his.

The Buddha was enlightened to the constant cycle of rebirth to where he no long goes through it anymore. He actually passed away.

Jesus enlightenment is a linear view that once one passes away they are either separated from the father forever or they are with the father forever. There is no rebirth.

The Buddha taught that our actions are what leads people from suffering. He also says that we should test the teacher and even himself in order to know who you are getting the correct teachings from.

Jesus taught that Christian's faith (as tiny as a mustard seed) is what leads to Christ (not suffering as per The Buddha taught). Through her faith in Christ, he does all the "dirty work" and she, as a servant to Christ, serve others because of his sacrifice.

The Buddha taught life through deeds and knowledge

Christ taught taught life through death and faith

They both had the same goals: harmony, peace, no suffering, and so forth. The abstract things people care about.

Their methods of getting there are so different that regardless of their goals, in both, if you don't go by the right method of one faith or the other, you don't get to that peace. They both say that you have to drop other religions that contradict the methods of getting to that peace.

The Buddha says not to depend on others for one's own enlightenment. (Pali) Some Mahayana sutras say depend on The Buddha for the knowledge to self-enlightenment. All say depend on a human whether it be oneself or The Buddha for knowledge thereof.

Christ taught to depend on others, himself, and his father to achieve enlightenment. He taught that if you are not going through him as a sacrificial offering to cleans yourself (that The Buddha would never teach), then you are not inline with the Father. So no matter what you do (four noble truths, eight fold paths, etc), it means nothing towards the goal of peace as defined by god the father not peace defined by us.

The Buddha taught that peace is defined by us in understanding the nature of life.

Christ taught there is no peace without the father.

Totally different faiths.

 

[metis]

True. Yeah, The Buddha does say test the teacher. He says if you don't believe what the teacher (The Buddhas) say are correct, then the teachings cannot help one to enlightenment. Different schools have their spin on how they place The Buddha. Most Pali sutras I've read place him as a teacher. The Lotus Sutra (Mahayana) put him in a "savior" position.

Aren't you Jewish?

Everyone is so fluid in their religiousness on RF, it's had to keep track.

Yes I am Jewish, although some of my fellow brothers & sisters probably would love to disown me.

There's a pretty significant difference between the Indian versus the eastern Asian schools, in that the Indian ones tended to be much more non-conformist oriented, whereas the eastern schools were much more conformist. Keep that in mind when discussing whether one can disagree with one's teacher because you will run across some very different responses.

 

[David1967]

Agreed-- an excellent book.

Ive read it 3 times. Absolutely love the author.

 

[David1967]

The Buddha became enlightened with his own knowledge and understanding of the nature of life.

Jesus became enlightened with his Father's knowledge and understanding of the nature of life.

Both taught there was suffering.

The Buddha taught we end our own suffering by understanding the nature of life through our actions.

Jesus taught he ends suffering through his father by Christians understanding of His Father through the Father's Son.

The Buddha taught that to be enlightened, one must save others from suffering.

Christ taught that suffering and dying (literally and by action) are the highest means of sacrificing your life to your father as Christ did to his.

The Buddha was enlightened to the constant cycle of rebirth to where he no long goes through it anymore. He actually passed away.

Jesus enlightenment is a linear view that once one passes away they are either separated from the father forever or they are with the father forever. There is no rebirth.

The Buddha taught that our actions are what leads people from suffering. He also says that we should test the teacher and even himself in order to know who you are getting the correct teachings from.

Jesus taught that Christian's faith (as tiny as a mustard seed) is what leads to Christ (not suffering as per The Buddha taught). Through her faith in Christ, he does all the "dirty work" and she, as a servant to Christ, serve others because of his sacrifice.

The Buddha taught life through deeds and knowledge

Christ taught taught life through death and faith

They both had the same goals: harmony, peace, no suffering, and so forth. The abstract things people care about.

Their methods of getting there are so different that regardless of their goals, in both, if you don't go by the right method of one faith or the other, you don't get to that peace. They both say that you have to drop other religions that contradict the methods of getting to that peace.

The Buddha says not to depend on others for one's own enlightenment. (Pali) Some Mahayana sutras say depend on The Buddha for the knowledge to self-enlightenment. All say depend on a human whether it be oneself or The Buddha for knowledge thereof.

Christ taught to depend on others, himself, and his father to achieve enlightenment. He taught that if you are not going through him as a sacrificial offering to cleans yourself (that The Buddha would never teach), then you are not inline with the Father. So no matter what you do (four noble truths, eight fold paths, etc), it means nothing towards the goal of peace as defined by god the father not peace defined by us.

The Buddha taught that peace is defined by us in understanding the nature of life.

Christ taught there is no peace without the father.

Totally different faiths.

I agree with "different", but not "totally".