Buddha and Jesus

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita,

Thanks for your post!

I would question whether as you wrote above that the Gautama Buddha "believed in himself"... as you can find in His teachings that have come down to us the virtue of "selflessness" as a way of dealing with the issue of suffering.

When a man is without self-identification with any object or idea, and does not grieve for what does not exist - that is
what is called a bhikkhu.

~ Dhammapada - Sayings of the Buddha 1 (tr. J. Richards)

You might also be interested in reading the article on "Apophatic theology" I have attached here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

But have a wonderful day and I admire your perseverance!

Thank you. I will read the article. I'm not to keep on Wiki though. I would provide sutras but I decided not to go onto the debate sections anymore and I don't want it to be interpreted as a debate.

To tell you honestly, but I'd have to the article, I don't understand the quote. A person who is considered a monk is someone who does not grieve over something that does not exist (the emptiness/delusion) and he doesn't attach himself to any idea or object.

So, from what I gather, it's saying that monks goal is to be unattach to objects and ideas and this is not excluding experiences of grief that in and of itself does not exist.

Though, I don't understand how that connects with my quote, what I meant by "Buddha believed in himself" is that he didn't depend outside resources, ideas, and objects for his enlightenment. He highly discouraged it. The school of Zen rejects it completely. We are more centered in understanding and changing our mind to where liberation means unattach o thoughts that bring otherwise.

I only know Christianity well, and the perspective of a Christian is what we experience comes from the heart rather than the mind. It brings outside resources (Prophet, Creator, etc) as a means to learn about oneself, creator, or the creator himself.

I can see how they are similar, but because their foundation is extremely different, I don't understand how they can fall under the same historical and logical umbrella. To me, if it's not logical, it's hard to find spiritual meaning to it. It's falling in love with a lie.

I would never say that to people; though, The Buddha does say we are locked into our delusions. Christ says we are locked in sin. So, same difference?

 

[arthra]

Carlita ..

Thanks for your post! I'm recommending a book for anyone interested entitled "The Gospel of Buddha" by Paul Carus. As it happens the text is online at

https://archive.org/details/gospelofbuddha008430mbp

There is an appendix that has a Table of Reference comparing the Buddhist scriptures to the Gospels.



His book has served as a good introduction to studying Buddhism and has been well liked by many.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

edit: oh, oops. take your time. you don't need to reply to it all of course.

Carlita ..

Thanks for your post! I'm recommending a book for anyone interested entitled "The Gospel of Buddha" by Paul Carus. As it happens the text is online at

https://archive.org/details/gospelofbuddha008430mbp

There is an appendix that has a Table of Reference comparing the Buddhist scriptures to the Gospels.



His book has served as a good introduction to studying Buddhism and has been well liked by many.

This isn't mean to be challenging, but I noticed from second-hand experience and questioned why many believers tend to try and create a connection of other faiths and worldviews. My co-worker is Christian, and she says Christianity was the first faith in Africa. I didn't have the heart to tell her that validating the truth of her belief isn't trying to find the origin of her beliefs that override the native ones already in Africa. It was almost as if there was a need to find solace everything came from Christ.

Another thing I remember her saying was Buddhism came from Christianity. I looked at her but wish I could challenge her statement, but she gets upset easily. Buddhism came thousand years before Christianity.

Then I wondered, well, again, why do we try to fit our culture into another person's culture?

It reminds me of what Ann Wilson Shaef, author of Native Wisdom for White (Western) Minds quotes:

March 31

Kiwekwacho na Mungu mwanadamu hawezi kukiondoa

"What god has established, man cannot annul." -Swahili Proverb

What god has established man cannot annul! (Ann says) I wonder how often do we stop and ponder what god has established...the earth, the trees, the plants, clean air clean water?

I wonder, do we ever really stop to think that we have different cultures, different languages, different perspectives on this planet for a reason? Have we ever stopped to imagine that differences are gift?

Why would we try to annul the rich heritage of variability we have on this planet to develop a one-party system?

When a rainbow gets constricted, it becomes one-color-white.

-end-

So many people try to connect other god-less religions to that of god. It's natural, seeing god is the foundation; however, regardless the overlap in morals and spiritual outlook, the culture that makes up that faith can be extremely different.

I am reading more on African faiths (signature below). A lot of what they say of how they view their ancestors and god hit home. The term god or creator has a different meaning or worldview than Christianty, Islam, and Judaism (and those in between). Europeans try to Christianize their beliefs and they became mixed with Haiti Vodou, African American conjure (they call hoodoo but natives do not call it that; family practice), witchcraft which is a European practice but Christianity has used the word to cover all practices unrelated to god.

The Church killed people because they were trying to make a one-party system that the natives disagreed with. And so on and so forth...

Although well meaning, the underlining core of building a one-party system whether written in books or politics is very degrading to the unique culture that completely differs than another.

Christianity is so close to Buddhism because they are both Eastern faiths. Mysticism has a point in how Christ saw things. In the movie Stigmata, there is one quote I like but can't find in any historic passage other than Nag Hamadi in 1945. words, "The Kingdom of God is in you and all around you. Not in a place of wood and stone. Split a peace of stone, and you'll find me. Lift a stone, and I'll be there." According to the movie, it was written by Christ. It was a basic rejection against the Church.

I guess in all of this, I feel we need to understand there are differences between faiths no matter how they overlap. I practiced edit had Catholicism, practice Buddhism, and I have pagan practices that I wouldn't consider a religion in and of itself. Granted they have overlaps, can you imagine the priest letting The Buddha take communion without the sacraments? Can you image my taking communion without confession?

We have the same goals. Same spirituality. Same everything else overlaps. However, each culture and spirituality mixed is different. Buddhism doesn't talk about confession. My pagan practice doesn't emphase taking the Eucharist.

Anyway, I was reading the wiki "Apophatic theology article." I agree that god is indescribable. I guess I'd have to read the book how that concept of god is not separate from ourselves but a product (for lack of better words) from our mind.

 

[sayak83]

Carlita ..

Thanks for your post! I'm recommending a book for anyone interested entitled "The Gospel of Buddha" by Paul Carus. As it happens the text is online at

https://archive.org/details/gospelofbuddha008430mbp

There is an appendix that has a Table of Reference comparing the Buddhist scriptures to the Gospels.



His book has served as a good introduction to studying Buddhism and has been well liked by many.

This book may have served to introduced the Western audience to aspects of Buddhism in format that is more familiar, but it really really really does not serve a useful purpose for someone who is seriously interested in investigating the tradition. There are excellent online resources that cover most of the texts and their critical translation in English.

The largest collection is in Sutta Central https://suttacentral.net/
A more approachable collection with good summary and background of the various texts is in Access to Insight http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html

The major major difference between Jesus and Buddha is the sheer disparity in what has been preserved. Because of the briefness of Jesus's preaching, the sayings and deeds of Jesus span 4 slim volumes spanning 80 pages at most, while the primary sayings and deeds of Buddha as preserved in the oldest texts span 12,000 pages! Even if you mercilessly cut down to the core based on literary analysis and how many times similar teachings were repeated in various circumstances, the "core" sayings and deeds would be about 6000-7000 pages at least . Buddha preached for 40 years peacefully and his monks (most of whom were Brahmins and Kshtriyas well versed in the art of oral retention) had a LOT of time to absorb and remember his thousands and thousands of conversations. Given the extraordinary and exhaustive level of detail and specificity with which Buddha expounded his views, I cannot see how his teachings could be compared with that of Jesus.

However I will give it a try. See the new thread

 

[loverofhumanity]

This book may have served to introduced the Western audience to aspects of Buddhism in format that is more familiar, but it really really really does not serve a useful purpose for someone who is seriously interested in investigating the tradition. There are excellent online resources that cover most of the texts and their critical translation in English.

The largest collection is in Sutta Central https://suttacentral.net/
A more approachable collection with good summary and background of the various texts is in Access to Insight http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html

The major major difference between Jesus and Buddha is the sheer disparity in what has been preserved. Because of the briefness of Jesus's preaching, the sayings and deeds of Jesus span 4 slim volumes spanning 80 pages at most, while the primary sayings and deeds of Buddha as preserved in the oldest texts span 12,000 pages! Even if you mercilessly cut down to the core based on literary analysis and how many times similar teachings were repeated in various circumstances, the "core" sayings and deeds would be about 6000-7000 pages at least . Buddha preached for 40 years peacefully and his monks (most of whom were Brahmins and Kshtriyas well versed in the art of oral retention) had a LOT of time to absorb and remember his thousands and thousands of conversations. Given the extraordinary and exhaustive level of detail and specificity with which Buddha expounded his views, I cannot see how his teachings could be compared with that of Jesus.

However I will give it a try. See the new thread

We understand Buddha and Jesus were complimentary each teaching a different aspect and perspective of truth. I find both their teachings indispensable to my spiritual life. For instance the Dhammapada and the Beautitudes.

 

[sayak83]

We understand Buddha and Jesus were complimentary each teaching a different aspect and perspective of truth. I find both their teachings indispensable to my spiritual life. For instance the Dhammapada and the Beautitudes.

I am completely for extracting aspects of teachings and wisdom of other people in one's own life. I do this all the time.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I am completely for extracting aspects of teachings and wisdom of other people in one's own life. I do this all the time.

It helps bond and unite all of us in a spirit of tolerance when we see the good in each of our religions.

 

[sayak83]

We understand Buddha and Jesus were complimentary each teaching a different aspect and perspective of truth. I find both their teachings indispensable to my spiritual life. For instance the Dhammapada and the Beautitudes.

In addition to my previous comment, I would note the reason I personally seek to find the unique aspects of what anybody said or practiced, is because that is the part that is novel, and hence I would want to know about to see if it would be useful to me to adopt and incorporate those unique ideas and practices in my own life. If all is the same, then why bother?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

One of the core of jesus teaching is John 3:16.

For god so loved the woeld, he gave his only begotton son so whomever believe in him will have everlasting life"

1. The nature of life is through Jesus son via the holy spirit and sent by the father. The holy spirit.

2. The reason for our salvation is that we have a tendency to sin (some denomni) or have original sin (other denomni)

3. The core or motivation of being one with god christ to some) is having the holy spirit in them so they are born again. They are now one with jesus thus and now one with his father. The only way to do this is by obtaining the spirit of christ.

Any results: compassion, beautitudes, commandments, are all founded in christianity off the above. So when comparing Buddha you have to compare with the foundation not the result

The Buddha's main teaching was (too many suttas to quote.)

1. The Buddha taught the nature of life is suffering. He says we are in a constant turmoil of rebirth. Some schools say we have a true nature and we are in rebirth because we are in delusion (similar to tendency to sin) while other schools say we are suffering (original sin) and the acts we do gets us out of it.

There is no god. So there is no comparison between Jesus teachings and The Buddha.

2. Buddha doesnt refer to enlightment as salvation because the only person who can save us is ourselves. When we become the Dharma (the practice) we are closer to enightenment. Everything comes from the person.

Jesus says everything comes from the father.

The results leads to compassion, etc and they overlap with jesus. Since their foundations are far from between, they are not alike.

The compassion jesus talks about is not the same as that of The Buddha.

3. The motivation for enlightenment in Buddhism is not in a person but the training of ones mind that leads to better actions/karma.

Christianity teaches to reach this same state one must go through christ/a person Not ones mind and Not oneself.

Very different.

The results of this may lead to compassion, the beautidues between the two but the meaning and experience are different 1. Because of foundation differences 2. Because of cultural differences

Buddha could not have been a manefestation of a god that isnt in his worldview. Thats like trying to fit a puzzle jn a whole that doesnt fit all because that solver thinks that puzzle is part of the same picture.

It is not. More than one puzzle.

I dont understand how the two go together logically and historically. Can someone explain that?

 

[loverofhumanity]

One of the core of jesus teaching is John 3:16.

For god so loved the woeld, he gave his only begotton son so whomever believe in him will have everlasting life"

1. The nature of life is through Jesus son via the holy spirit and sent by the father. The holy spirit.

2. The reason for our salvation is that we have a tendency to sin (some denomni) or have original sin (other denomni)

3. The core or motivation of being one with god christ to some) is having the holy spirit in them so they are born again. They are now one with jesus thus and now one with his father. The only way to do this is by obtaining the spirit of christ.

Any results: compassion, beautitudes, commandments, are all founded in christianity off the above. So when comparing Buddha you have to compare with the foundation not the result

The Buddha's main teaching was (too many suttas to quote.)

1. The Buddha taught the nature of life is suffering. He says we are in a constant turmoil of rebirth. Some schools say we have a true nature and we are in rebirth because we are in delusion (similar to tendency to sin) while other schools say we are suffering (original sin) and the acts we do gets us out of it.

There is no god. So there is no comparison between Jesus teachings and The Buddha.

2. Buddha doesnt refer to enlightment as salvation because the only person who can save us is ourselves. When we become the Dharma (the practice) we are closer to enightenment. Everything comes from the person.

Jesus says everything comes from the father.

The results leads to compassion, etc and they overlap with jesus. Since their foundations are far from between, they are not alike.

The compassion jesus talks about is not the same as that of The Buddha.

3. The motivation for enlightenment in Buddhism is not in a person but the training of ones mind that leads to better actions/karma.

Christianity teaches to reach this same state one must go through christ/a person Not ones mind and Not oneself.

Very different.

The results of this may lead to compassion, the beautidues between the two but the meaning and experience are different 1. Because of foundation differences 2. Because of cultural differences

Buddha could not have been a manefestation of a god that isnt in his worldview. Thats like trying to fit a puzzle jn a whole that doesnt fit all because that solver thinks that puzzle is part of the same picture.

It is not. More than one puzzle.

I dont understand how the two go together logically and historically. Can someone explain that?

It's semantics. Enlightenment and being born again or saved are synonymous. The different terminologies used by Buddha and Christ are all pointing us to the same reality, nirvana or paradise, a state of selflessness or nothingness.

Buddhists too follow the Buddha. Christ just saying that people must follow Him is because He is truly enlightened He said "I am the light if the world" meaning enlightened One Who shows the way like the Buddha.

Buddha speaks about the "Uncreated". Also He said future Buddhas would appear Who will teach their own Dhamma indicating diversity of religions.


Everlasting life in Buddhistic terminology would be the freeing of attachment to self - Nirvana through enlightenment and free from suffering,

There is really no difference in goal. Buddha taught us things we must know and so did Christ. I accept both Buddha and Christ and there is no conflict whatsoever.

Conflict arises from ego and the insistent self where we have been taught to compete and conquer and that our religion is number one and others wrong.

This is from the Gospel of Buddha yet one could be excused if they thought it was Christ speaking in the Bible... Notice salvation is mentioned. Buddha also calls Himself a Saviour!!!!

"You are my children, I am your father; through me you have been released from your sufferings. I myself having reached the other shore, help others to cross the stream; I myself having attained salvation, am a savior of others; being comforted, I comfort others and lead them to the place of refuge. I shall fill with joy all the beings...

Now read this...

"I was born into the world as the king of truth for the salvation of the world.

Buddha and Christ are one.

Resurrection - Buddha lives on

This body of mine is Gotama's body and it will be dissolved in due time, and after its dissolution no one, neither God nor man, will see Gotama again. But the truth remains. The Buddha will not die; the Buddha will continue to live in the holy body of the law.

All Buddhas are one in essence all the prophets like Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, Moses, Baha'u'llah all teach the truth

All the Buddhas teach the same truth. They point out the path to those who go astray. The Truth is our hope and comfort. We gratefully accept its illimitable light.

"All the Buddhas are one in essence" (Gospel of Buddha)

Reading these Words of the Buddha only confirm in unmistakeable language that all the major religions are true and so is their Founders - Buddhas and they all teach the same truth.

Buddha as Redeemer

Thou art Bhagavat, the Blessed One, for thou art called upon to become the saviour and redeemer of the world.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I want to try and keep this in a discussion format. There are a bit of things I disagree with; and, I'll try to bring it to light. You are Baha'i am I correct? Maybe share how your faith sees Buddhism and Jesus Christ? Also, I quote in sections because it's hard to put together points in one full post. So I read the whole post in sections.

It's semantics. Enlightenment and being born again or saved are synonymous. The different terminologies used by Buddha and Christ are all pointing us to the same reality, nirvana or paradise, a state of selflessness or nothingness.

In what The Buddha taught and what I know is true as someone following Buddhist morals, I don't see enlightenment, born again, and saved as synonymous whatsoever. Here is why.

Enlightenment:

There is a book called "In the Buddha's Words. An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon" by Bhikku Bodhi. It gives suttas on what the Buddha taught. In this case, the focus of enlightenment is understanding. In Chapter 8: Mastering the Mind, he goes through different ways to develop skills for the mind. "but it is this unshakable liberation of mind that is the goal of this spiritual life, its heartwood, and its end." MN 29 Mahasaropama Sutta

Salvation: In addition to John 3:16, the beatitudes in Luke 6:21-26 about the focus on Jesus' teachings based on god not the mind (as above). The foundation is different. Therefore the interpretation of the results are different. Regardless of how they overlap, they are different.

Remember the post about "making a one-party system"? That's basically what some of us are doing. Spiritually, if it works, that's fine. Historically and logically, that's a different story.

Buddhists too follow the Buddha. Christ just saying that people must follow Him is because He is truly enlightened He said "I am the light if the world" meaning enlightened One Who shows the way like the Buddha.

Buddhist follow The Dharma not the Buddha.

Christians follow Christ as the foundation of his teachings, not the other way around.

Enlightenment is not about "I am the light of the world." Jesus referrence to light is being in union with his father. The Buddha (regardless the term you use) enlightenment was understanding of suffering and the nature of life. In Christianity, the nature of life has already been said before Jesus was born. When Jesus became the Christ, he became the light as he was one with his father to save humanity. The Buddha doesn't save humanity. The Dharma does. Salvation isn't the correct term for enlightenment. Christ actually saves people. The Dharma doesn't do anything in and of itself. It's not an idol. People save themselves. That is the Dharma. Two different animals.

The Buddha showed the way to liberation of the mind.

Christ showed the way to liberation of the heart.

The Buddha's goal was to change the mind and train it to liberation and end rebirth.

Christ's goal was to liberate the heart from sin (Delusions aren't sins), an action which is against his father as to go to heaven. Rebirth is not heaven.

Buddha speaks about the "Uncreated". Also He said future Buddhas would appear Who will teach their own Dhamma indicating diversity of religions.

The first part is correct. The last is not. Buddhas are manefestations of The Buddha who spreads the Dharma so that followers can practice the Dharma only. Various religions are not part of the Dharma. God isn't part of the Dharma nor is Muhammad. It's alright to personally combine the two. Historically and logically, it's incorrect.

Everlasting life in Buddhistic terminology would be the freeing of attachment to self - Nirvana through enlightenment and free from suffering,

Nibanna is not everlasting life. It is not the same as heaven. Having perfect understanding of life (suffering) does not mean one lives forever. The Buddha, Gautama actually died. His purpose was to spread his teachings after his death. He did not live forever because he got out of rebirth. Heaven is the complete opposite.

There is really no difference in goal. Buddha taught us things we must know and so did Christ. I accept both Buddha and Christ and there is no conflict whatsoever.

True. The foundation is different. Therefore the outlook on the goal is different. The difference is influenced by 1. Different foundation (mind vs. god) and 2. culture (indian, japanese, chinese, etc vs. Hebrew, Roman, etc)

Conflict arises from ego and the insistent self where we have been taught to compete and conquer and that our religion is number one and others wrong.

It's a western thing. There is a difference (as I mentioned in the Shaef post) in accepting and respecting the differences of religion and actually basing one religion on the foundation of another by making it a one-party system. It's politics.

This is from the Gospel of Buddha yet one could be excused if they thought it was Christ speaking in the Bible... Notice salvation is mentioned. Buddha also calls Himself a Saviour!!!!

Jesus was a savior because he died for others.

Buddha was a savior because he gave the Dharma to others.

Being a savior doesn't mean the two have the same foundations nor does it mean their goals are interpreted the same given their foundations are different.

The Buddha didn't die for people. Jesus didn't spread his own word to others. The former spreaded his own words. Jesus spreaded his father's.

Salvation is completely different between the two. The word doesn't make them the same. In The Suttras, The Buddha is also called Lord. Jesus is called Lord. The creator is called Lord. It's a word.

"You are my children, I am your father; through me you have been released from your sufferings. I myself having reached the other shore, help others to cross the stream; I myself having attained salvation, am a savior of others; being comforted, I comfort others and lead them to the place of refuge. I shall fill with joy all the beings...

The Dharma frees people from suffering by one's own practice.

Christ frees people from his own suffering.

The first one is personal. It's done by oneself. The latter is done by an outside party. Two different meanings.

"I was born into the world as the king of truth for the salvation of the world.

The Dharma is "salvation" if you like not the Buddha. Christ was salvation not his physical teachings.

Buddha and Christ are one.

They are both human, both have goals to "save the world", both spreaded the word, both were considered Lords in their own time. So, I can see that.

As I already pointed out, though, their foundations and culture are different making them different. We have to respect their differences.

Unity among diversity.

Resurrection - Buddha lives on

The Dharma lives on. The Buddha died because he has ended rebirth and already have full understanding of suffering. That's fully in the Lotus Sutra. Christ focused on his father and for people to live on. The Buddha focused on his physical teachings so their practices can live on.

This body of mine is Gotama's body and it will be dissolved in due time, and after its dissolution no one, neither God nor man, will see Gotama again. But the truth remains. The Buddha will not die; the Buddha will continue to live in the holy body of the law.

Where is that? The Lotus Sutra is full of scriptures that quote The Buddha actually saying he will die and his goal is for his disciples to spread his teachings. He also said future Buddhas will be manifestations of himself. There's no trinity in Buddhism.

All Buddhas are one in essence all the prophets like Christ, Muhammad, Krishna, Moses, Baha'u'llah all teach the truth

That is a personal belief. It's not historically and logically correct. It depends on what you value, personal belief, historical accuracy, or logic. No one is wrong just it's hard to understand the truth when expressing spirituality as logic/facts. In many cases, it doesn't work that way.

All the Buddhas teach the same truth. They point out the path to those who go astray. The Truth is our hope and comfort. We gratefully accept its illimitable light.

"All the Buddhas are one in essence" (Gospel of Buddha)

If you like. The Buddha says manefestations of himself. There isn't a Buddhist "Gospel" but that could be semantics.

Reading these Words of the Buddha only confirm in unmistakeable language that all the major religions are true and so is their Founders - Buddhas and they all teach the same truth.

That's a personal belief. Why can't we accept unity among diversity? Why make it a one-party system? If we are looking at comparative beliefs how can you make the two alike?

Buddha as Redeemer

I disagree. I explained that above, though.

Thou art Bhagavat, the Blessed One, for thou art called upon to become the saviour and redeemer of the world.

The Dharma is the redeemer not The Buddha. The disciples looked to The Buddha for his teachings (Lotus Sutra) not to The Buddha for salvation.

Did you want to go to one-to-one debates? It's easier to converse with supporting evidence?​

Comparing Buddhism to Jesus' teachings is pretty intense and it requires proof since the terms overlap.

 

[arthra]

However I will give it a try.

Thanks for your post Sayak83!

Yes .. give it a try! Admittedly Paul Carus wrote over a century ago and we have a lot of material online! But do give it a "try"!

The earliest written Buddhist scripture that we have discovered is in a script known as
Kharoshti found in Afganistan. It was in use from around the third century before Christ to the sixth century of the Christian era.

"An analysis of the script forms shows a clear dependency on the Aramaic alphabet but with extensive modifications to support the sounds found in Indic languages"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhāran_Buddhist_texts

So it's difficult to tell really how ancient some of the sources really are at this point...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The differences between Jesus' teachings and The Buddha's

The difference in goals of both people

Jesus

Mathew 4:4-11 and Mathew 7:25-34

"4/ One does not live by bread alone, bt by every word that comes forth from the mouth of god... 7/ Again it is written, you shall not put the lord your god, to the test...10/the lord, your god shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.

The Buddha

Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile

The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. [7] Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

"No, lord."

"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

Jesus taught attachment. He taught dependency on his father. The Buddha taught indepedency. When we are attach to "the raft" we are defeating the purpose of non-attachment. Jesus teaches the opposite.


The difference in enlightenment and salvation

Jesus Mathew 17:20-21

Jesus says salvation is by faith, and faith alone. "because of your little faith, amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'move from here to there' and it will mov. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Salvation is built on the faith in Christ. When one has faith in Christ, they are in union with his son and thus, with the father.

Salvation means you are "saved from something"... by something or someone.

Liberation (enlightenment) means you are "freed from something or someone."

It's also different in definition not just religious wise.

The Buddha

He taught actual practice (not faith) brings one to liberation or enlightenment. He says:

(1) What is Nibbaana?

On one occasion the Venerable Saariputta was dwelling in Magadha at
Naalakagaama. The wanderer Jambukhaadaka approached the Venerable
Saariputta and exchanged greetings with him. When they had concluded
their greetings and cordial talk, he sat down to one side and said to
the Venerable Saariputta:

"Friend Saariputta, it is said, 'Nibbaana, Nibbaana.' What now is
Nibbaana?"

"The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction
of delusion: this, friend, is called Nibbaana.

"But, friend, is that a path, is there a way for the realization of
this Nibbaana?"

"There is a path, friend, there is a way for the realization of this
Nibbaana."

"And what, friend, is that path, what is that way for the realization
of this Nibbaana?"

"It is, friend, this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right
intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right
effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the path,
friend, this is the way for the realization of this Nibbaana."
"Excellent is the path, friend, excellent is the way for the
realization of this Nibbaana. And it is enough, friend Saariputta,
for diligence." (SN 38:1, IV 251-52)

Jesus said that to get rid of all of these, one must have faith in the father. When one is with the father, one is in heaven.

The Buddha says to get rid of all these things, we need to address it from the mind; because it isn't from sin (Jesus' teachings), it is from our delusions. Delusions aren't sins. He says we are to practice (Jesus says have faith) and practice gets rid of these things.

Jesus never taught faith an faith alone. However, he did not teach that actions override faith when going to heaven and being with the father.

The Buddha taught the other way around. The only way to have faith is through practice. Two different worldviews.

Jesus: Mathew 26: 31-46 (too long to quote)

Jesus says that god will judge the nations and those who are rightous will do good things of the lord through christ. The unrightous will be judged.

The Buddha

The Buddha taught that those who do not come from their delusions of the mind (enlightened) will continue in the rebirth. There is no judgement. The difference is The Buddha says we are to practice and change our actions so that we may get out of rebirth.

Also, sin is an action, delusions and attachment are not.

Jesus' taught to change one's actions.
The Buddha taught to change one's mind.

When one changes their actions, their mind will be one with Christ.
When one changes their mind, their actions will be one with their mind.

The former, the foundation of change is through the father via Christ
The latter, the foundation is the mind; and, when one changes the perceptions of the mind, the actions will follow.

It will take me too much time to quote suttas on this.

In general, if we were to 'compare' Jesus' teachings with The Buddha's we can say that both advocate compassion, lack of lust, and so forth.

However, they are severely different because Jesus depends on his father. The Buddha does not.

How can these two people be alike when they have completely different foundations for their similar teachings?

 

[arthra]

Carlita,

Some stress the similarities between the Christ and Buddha..

See:

http://buddha-christ.info/similarities.html

 

[buddhist]

How can these two people be alike when they have completely different foundations for their similar teachings?

To try to harmonize the two is to deprive each of their uniqueness, and both are debased.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita,

Some stress the similarities between the Christ and Buddha..

See:

http://buddha-christ.info/similarities.html

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.

 

[idav]

The differences between Jesus' teachings and The Buddha's

The difference in goals of both people

Jesus

Mathew 4:4-11 and Mathew 7:25-34

"4/ One does not live by bread alone, bt by every word that comes forth from the mouth of god... 7/ Again it is written, you shall not put the lord your god, to the test...10/the lord, your god shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.

The Buddha

Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile

Jesus taught attachment. He taught dependency on his father. The Buddha taught indepedency. When we are attach to "the raft" we are defeating the purpose of non-attachment. Jesus teaches the opposite.


The difference in enlightenment and salvation

Jesus Mathew 17:20-21

Jesus says salvation is by faith, and faith alone. "because of your little faith, amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'move from here to there' and it will mov. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Salvation is built on the faith in Christ. When one has faith in Christ, they are in union with his son and thus, with the father.

Salvation means you are "saved from something"... by something or someone.

Liberation (enlightenment) means you are "freed from something or someone."

It's also different in definition not just religious wise.

The Buddha

He taught actual practice (not faith) brings one to liberation or enlightenment. He says:



Jesus said that to get rid of all of these, one must have faith in the father. When one is with the father, one is in heaven.

The Buddha says to get rid of all these things, we need to address it from the mind; because it isn't from sin (Jesus' teachings), it is from our delusions. Delusions aren't sins. He says we are to practice (Jesus says have faith) and practice gets rid of these things.

Jesus never taught faith an faith alone. However, he did not teach that actions override faith when going to heaven and being with the father.

The Buddha taught the other way around. The only way to have faith is through practice. Two different worldviews.

Jesus: Mathew 26: 31-46 (too long to quote)

Jesus says that god will judge the nations and those who are rightous will do good things of the lord through christ. The unrightous will be judged.

The Buddha

The Buddha taught that those who do not come from their delusions of the mind (enlightened) will continue in the rebirth. There is no judgement. The difference is The Buddha says we are to practice and change our actions so that we may get out of rebirth.

Also, sin is an action, delusions and attachment are not.

Jesus' taught to change one's actions.
The Buddha taught to change one's mind.

When one changes their actions, their mind will be one with Christ.
When one changes their mind, their actions will be one with their mind.

The former, the foundation of change is through the father via Christ
The latter, the foundation is the mind; and, when one changes the perceptions of the mind, the actions will follow.

It will take me too much time to quote suttas on this.

In general, if we were to 'compare' Jesus' teachings with The Buddha's we can say that both advocate compassion, lack of lust, and so forth.

However, they are severely different because Jesus depends on his father. The Buddha does not.

How can these two people be alike when they have completely different foundations for their similar teachings?

I find that the foundation really is love and respect for all of humans and the world. Something that Jesus had to strive very hard to teach even his closest followers. Buddha already said these things quite some time before Christ and they were both correct. They also had similarities in releasing of attachments. They are also similar in that they didn't write their own stuff but supposed followers tried to repeat what the wise men said. Thats the comparative aspects between Jesus and Buddha. Sure they are certainly different religions and one can't go by Pauls contributions, only the gospels are most similar to what Buddha allegedly said, and perhaps the gnostic gospels that were left out of the bible canon for political reasons.

 

[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.

The main logic behind it is there is only one god. If that is true then both men were enlightened by the same god, which by no means should mean every single thing they say is going to be god sent. The inspiration is easy enough to see in both Jesus of the gospels and Buddhas scripts. If there is no god then Jesus was another buddha, many eastern phiilosphies count Jesus and Buddha as one of the avatars, so it really depends on what you believe but ultimately if you have spiritual leanings then all people inspired by spirit should be from the same source whether you want to say buddhahood, sainthood an avatar or what have you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The main logic behind it is there is only one god. If that is true then both men were enlightened by the same god, which by no means should mean every single thing they say is going to be god sent. The inspiration is easy enough to see in both Jesus of the gospels and Buddhas scripts. If there is no god then Jesus was another buddha, many eastern phiilosphies count Jesus and Buddha as one of the avatars, so it really depends on what you believe but ultimately if you have spiritual leanings then all people inspired by spirit should be from the same source whether you want to say buddhahood, sainthood an avatar or what have you.

I'm a sola sutrura person; so, what I say is what I read in sutras and gospels. They aren't my personal opinions or using different words to mean the same thing.

God couldn't have been the foundation for both. If there is one foundation, both The Buddha's teachings and Jesus' would have to share them. They do not. Jesus taught dependency of his father. The Buddha taught independence from outside things and ideas we have obstructing our minds from liberation. The Buddha could not have been enlightened by god because god is not the mind and it's not "one's true nature" according to Mahayana Buddhism. Likewise, Jesus could not have been enlightened by The Buddha's teachings because in order to do so, he'd have to unattached himself from his father and find enlightenment within himself.

Jesus and The Buddha have different meanings of attachment. The Buddha did not see god(s) of India, for example, as a part of enlightenment. He rejected that god(s) and any spiritual practices of that nature can bring someone to that mindful state. So, he'd not only reject Jesus' dependency on god, but also Muslim's dependency on Allah (and so forth).

How can Jesus be independent while being dependent on his father?

How can The Buddha be dependent on attachments but claim he achieved (sorry-un)attachment?

How can there be a same-difference?

 

[idav]

I'm a sola sutrura person; so, what I say is what I read in sutras and gospels. They aren't my personal opinions or using different words to mean the same thing.

OK thats great but I just listed several religions.

God couldn't have been the foundation for both. If there is one foundation, both The Buddha's teachings and Jesus' would have to share them.

That would assume that a Buddha or Saint can never make a mistake which I think is impossible.

They do not.

They don't have to as I noted above.

Jesus taught dependency of his father. The Buddha taught independence from outside things and ideas we have obstructing our minds from liberation. The Buddha could not have been enlightened by god because god is not the mind and it's not "one's true nature" according to Mahayana Buddhism. Likewise, Jesus could not have been enlightened by The Buddha's teachings because in order to do so, he'd have to unattached himself from his father and find enlightenment within himself.

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.

Jesus and The Buddha have different meanings of attachment. The Buddha did not see god(s) of India, for example, as a part of enlightenment. He rejected that god(s) and any spiritual practices of that nature can bring someone to that mindful state. So, he'd not only reject Jesus' dependency on god, but also Muslim's dependency on Allah (and so forth).

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.