Buddhism and Christianity

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Do I see a parallel here?

Jesus the human lived and died; Christ is eternal.

Siddhartha the human lived and died; Dharmakaya is eternal. (In the Lotus Sutra the historical Buddha explains that he has always and will always exist. This eternal aspect of the Buddha is the Dharmakaya, the Dharma body which lies beyond all dualities and conceptions; one of the three bodies of Buddha. A trinity in fact…)

s.

Dharmakaya? Perhaps just an eternal existence.
Nice try, but no go.

[bob x]

"Just" an eternal existence???

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Dharmakaya? Perhaps just an eternal existence.
Nice try, but no go.

I think what I posted is correct so what is it that you mean by "nice try, but no go"? Do you know a better statement of Dharmakaya? I was simply drawing a comparison; no need to get defensive quite so soon, Patti.

s.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by bob x

"Just" an eternal existence???

I see you don't appreciate my sarcasm. Pity.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

I was simply drawing a comparison; no need to get defensive quite so soon, Patti.

s.

Oh Snoopy, it is an automatic reflex. Buddhism and Christianity are NOT on the same playing field and I wasn't getting defensive. I did think it was a nice try. (but no go)

[Thomas]

Hi Azure24 —

Originally Posted by Azure24

But does no one understand what i am saying? why are they so simular?

Because someone has gone through listing similarities.
Now you should go through listing differences.

Originally Posted by Azure24

Buddha the new born prince ...
Jesus the new born prince ...

Buddha was born a prince by blood, Jesus was not ... your source is stretching an analogy too far.

Originally Posted by Azure24

Buddha is Sinless ...
Jesus is Sinless...

It is an error to assume that sin means the same thing in both traditions.

Originally Posted by Azure24

:
Buddha: Nirvana is Deathless" ...
Jesus: Everlasting Life ...

Not the same thing at all. Buddha experienced life, Jesus is life.

Originally Posted by Azure24

:
Buddha holds nothing back...
Jesus holds nothing back...

I could probably find quotes to show the opposite is also the case.
"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" John 16:12.

Originally Posted by Azure24

MARA AND BUDDHA ...
SATAN AND JESUS ...

The tendency to serve oneself is present in all humanity.

Originally Posted by Azure24

Buddha is the Truth and the Law...
Jesus is the Truth and the Law...

No, Jesus is 'the way the truth and the life ... your source is freely interpreting Scripture to make it fit his pattern. I'm not saying Jesus is not the Law, but I am saying there is a difference between law and life in this instance.

Originally Posted by Azure24

:
Buddha lectures priest on bloodless sacrifice...
Jesus lectures priest (Sadducees) on bloodless sacrifice...

How about this, then:
"He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life" John 6:55. You see? Your source is simply ignoring texts that don't fit his pattern.

Originally Posted by Azure24

Buddha calls priests blind...
Jesus calls priests (Pharisees) blind...

Again, men are the same the world over.

Originally Posted by Azure24

Buddha sends missionaries ...
Jesus sends missionaries...

Again, men are the same the world over ... they need the truth.

Originally Posted by Azure24

Buddha helps outcastes ...
Jesus helps outcaste lepers...

Well, I don't know Buddhist Scripture, but I would say Buddha helps, Jesus heals ... big difference.

Originally Posted by Azure24

Buddha declares ...
Christ declares ...

OK.

Originally Posted by Azure24

Buddha can walk on water and walk through walls:
Jesus can walk on water and walk through walls:

Jesus raised people from the dead ...

Originally Posted by Azure24

According to American historian Kenneth Scott Latourette, by the time that Jesus was born, "Buddhism had already spread through much of India and Ceylon and had penetrated into Central Asia and China.

This is the kind of populist nonsense that is bad scholarship, but sells books, whereas good scholarship has a tougher job.

Originally Posted by Azure24

What do you think?

I think Mr Scott Latourette has shown he knows nothing about Christianity, and probably knows nothing about Buddhism.

Originally Posted by Azure24

Did one (text) inspire another?

Remember that the Buddhist texts were not written down for hundreds of years, so I doubt a canonical Buddhist text existed in Judea at the time of Jesus, or by the time the New Testament was written ... but that's not the point ... the two traditions are so very different that in reality they are worlds apart ... there is no way that the one inspired the other.

... now, if you were to ask whether Judaism, which had been in existence in the region for thousands of years, inspired Christianity, you'd be on a better bet ... apparently Mr Scott Latourette forgot about that one, but then that's already been written about, and probably is an idea that wouldn't sell many books anyway.

Thomas

[marmalade]

I think that the reason that comparisons like these exist is because archetypes exist in the human psyche. Campbell wrote endlessly about comparisons and he did write some about Christianity. Campbell's Hero's Journey was based on Raglan's theory. Jesus story has been analyzed by others using his Hero's Journey. Also, Murdock's(aka Acharya S) second book goes into the details of Jesus and Buddha in terms of astrological symbolism(which Campbell speaks of also). The movie Zeitgeist was partially based on her work, and she wrote a guide to accompany it which recently came out.

The way archetypes work is that they are unerlying patterns. Cultural details that differ don't disprove the theory. The law of gravity is true no matter the different objects to which it applies. On the other hand, some theorists say that these patterns aren't caused by archetypes, but rather its either cultural dispersion or common observations of the world(astrology). I'd say its a combination of all of these.

For any who doubt such theories, I'd recommend you read some of these theorists. However, I realize those who want to believe in a unique Christ will believe so no matter what. If you're truly interested and curious, then you can learn about all of this on your own. If you're not truly interested and curious, then this thread could go on for a hundreds of more posts and you wouldn't be convinced. Been there, done that.

The theory could be wrong in certain aspects meaning you can endlessly nitpick details. For instance, few hero myths fit every detail of Raglan's theory, but most hero myths fit the majority of the details. Its only a general pattern, and there are always exceptions to the rule.

Another thing to keep in mind is that comparative mythology has nothing directly to do with the historical reality of Jesus. Jesus may have existed which is to say that there might have been a real person whose life was fit into this mythic pattern. Or you could even believe that God incarnated as Jesus using this universal pattern. I sort of like the view that archetypes are thoughts in God's mind.

So, what is the advantage of making such comparisons. Many Christians and atheists feel this dismisses the truth of Christianity. The Christian writer Harpur disagrees. He believes this points towards the universal truth of Christianity, and helps us to understand it more deeply.

The theory makes sense to me in my experience. If it doesn't make sense to you or you don't like it for whatever reason, then that is just the way it is. The way most Christians emphasize history so much makes no sense to me and probably never will. We believe what we believe and most often its because that is the way we were raised. I was raised in extremely liberal Christianity, and so the idea of a Christ within is something I grew up with.

[Thomas]

Hi Marmalade —

Originally Posted by marmalade

I think that the reason that comparisons like these exist is because archetypes exist in the human psyche.

I agree, with the proviso that in this particular instance the author has been neither precise nor (I suggest) genuine, with his offering. One can draw parallels, but they are parallels, they are not the same thing, and in this instance, the author's parallels are in fact not quite parallel!

That's all I'm saying. If you're going to do this, you need to be accurate, otherwise you're diseminating disinformation and actually obscusing the truth.

Originally Posted by marmalade

Campbell wrote endlessly about comparisons and he did write some about Christianity.

As a Catholic I would argue that the archetypes are founded in the Logos of God. There is a tendency to insist that archetypes are either human in origin, or just somehow cosmically exist. In both I find the ontology wanting.

Likewise, I would argue that there are correlatives between Christ and cosmology because Christ created the Kosmos, not because He is subject to it, but rather utilises it according to His will.

Originally Posted by marmalade

Campbell's Hero's Journey was based on Raglan's theory...

One can loosely say there are two basic answers to the problem of suffering, one externalises and overcomes it — Buddhism — the other internalises and ovecomes it — Christianity — and I did say 'loose', I doubt a Buddhist would be satisfied with that, nor a Christian, but The Hero's Journey is subsequent to, or shaped by, these and other determinations.

Traditions spoke of the Way, or Covenant and so on, before clever people came up with Hero Journeys ... I suggest they're trying to put the cart before the horse?

Take the religious traditions of the Mesopotamian region, for example. The Hero's Journey of the Epic of Gilgamesh is radically different from that of Noah. In this context man's religious awareness shapes the journey, not the other way round.

(What's so clever about 'The Hero Journey' anyway? Had they never read Pilgrim's Progress, or The Divine Comedy? It's nothing new ... )

Originally Posted by marmalade

The way archetypes work is that they are underlying patterns.

Again, as a Catholic I view the Logos as establishing those and every pattern, as I am sure you are aware among the many meanings of the term Logos is order, pattern, ratio, dialogue, etc.

Originally Posted by marmalade

However, I realize those who want to believe in a unique Christ will believe so no matter what.

I tend to find that such attempts at 'explaining' religious phenomena ignore or are unaware of the aspects that render their particular founder 'unique'. Put another way, I believe that those who say that Christianity and Buddhism (or indeed any tradition) say essentially the same thing understand neither in any real depth.

Originally Posted by marmalade

If you're truly interested and curious, then you can learn about all of this on your own.

I am truly interested and curious. I just outgrew these types of theory because I went deep into one rather than superficially across many. They have their place, and they reflect the truth, but not to any profound or meaningful level ... their truths are cosmological rather than metacosmic.

Saying that all Revelation is the same, or all Enlightenment is the same, is neither a revelation nor an enlightenment (in fact its a huge assumption without foundation), and I becoming increasingly amused by those who presume to offer authoritative commentary when they themselves would admit they have not undergone a process of revelation or enlightenment.

Originally Posted by marmalade

I sort of like the view that archetypes are thoughts in God's mind.

We are in agreement there.

Originally Posted by marmalade

So, what is the advantage of making such comparisons. Many Christians and atheists feel this dismisses the truth of Christianity. The Christian writer Harpur disagrees. He believes this points towards the universal truth of Christianity, and helps us to understand it more deeply.

I haven't read Harpur ... but I see no reason to suppose a study of another tradition allows one to understand one's own more deeply. The implication is that one's own tradition is in some way inadequate or wanting. Why should a Christian need anyone else to tell him that Christianity is universal?

Again, no offence to Harpur (I don't know his context) but I suggest something else. I suggest that in looking for comparisons one is seeking to overcome one's doubt by exterior affirmation: "If Buddhism says it too, then it might be true." That's pretty weak faith, in my book. I don't think it's deepening at all, quite the reverse, in fact.

I would suggest if anyone wants to understand a tradition deeply, then go deep, don't go wide ...

... just do it, as the slogan says ...

I do agree that study of another tradition allows one to better defend one's own in the face of such. St Thomas Aquinas is a marvellous case in point. Faced with the Islamic 'threat' he studied the great Moslem philosophers, whom he acknowledges unreservedly in his works, but he learnt nothing about Christianity from them, nor was his faith strengthened nor deepened ... rather he learnt the method of Aristotelian argument, and met and refuted them on their ground.

I learnt a huge amount from René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon and the philosophers of the Perennialist Tradion (but not Aldous Huxley), whom I believe offer commentaries on comparative religion that are second to none.

But their commentaries are themselves are dependent on and indebted to the commentaries of the various traditions for their data, without which they would not make much headway at all.

Thomas

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

What I meant was that even Christians vary quite a bit, and much of this variety is due to differences in upbringing and their (sub)culture of origin. This difference is even greater among people who may all be experiencing God, but have not heard about Christ.

I don't mean we should avoid telling people about Christ, but rather that I recognize that these cultural differences are a primary reason why there are a lot of religious differences and rather inescapable. I recognize that I can know Christ, experience Him, be saved by Him... and still be trapped somewhat in my cultural lens, unable to see the world (spiritual and otherwise) as clearly as I would like. If we could, then all of us would agree because we would all see the same Truth in every detail.

As for the veil, I agree that Christ became the bridge to unite humanity and God. However, while we are incarnated in bodies, there are still barriers. We may get glimpses and experiences of God, but we are not perfected until after death. For this reason, even Christians still exist with a temporary veil between ourselves and God. We get closer to piercing that veil the closer we draw to Christ and let Him fill us, dying to self and living in Him. However, that all must be experienced through our brains and bodies, which make all sorts of mistakes in processing information, means we will only be able to have experiences and then imperfect expressions of and theories/doctrines about these experiences.

Yes, quite a bit. I personally experienced God, knew about Christ, but really never met Him until a few years ago. Christians you agree with may have this pseudo-veil, but what about the ones you don’t agree with you?

What about experiences they have sans veil? Because you have identified them as mistakes, do you really think they are mistakes? Or possibly that is the only way your mind can process them. Have you ever considered the possibility that they are not mistakes? Perhaps you can get closer to God.

Once you die to self and live in Him, the veil has been eliminated. Personally, I enjoy having a body (and mind) not temporarily veiled. Perfection beyond this earthly expression is something I anticipate, but in the mean time …

When Jesus conquered death, the veil was torn in half. (Although trying to repair that veil seems to be some people’s goal in life…) I admit I am speaking literally. Maybe the “mistake” was using the word “veil.” No cover is necessary when you are dealing with honest Christianity.

[bob x]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Remember that the Buddhist texts were not written down for hundreds of years, so I doubt a canonical Buddhist text existed in Judea at the time of Jesus, or by the time the New Testament was written ...

This is incorrect. The Pali canon was in written form by the 3rd century BC. King Ashoka's palaces have some quotes written on the walls. He sent out missionaries two by two; Clement of Alexandria notes Buddhist preachers in Egypt of his day, and says they were especially popular in the British Isles. Where there are close textual parallels, as:

"That great cloud rains down on all whether their nature is superior or inferior. The light of the sun and the moon illuminates the whole world, both him who does well and him who does ill, both him who stands high and him who stands low." (Sadharmapundarika Sutra 5)

"Your father in heaven makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous." (Matt. 5:45)

the chance that Jesus had heard the older text is quite good.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Yes, quite a bit. I personally experienced God, knew about Christ, but really never met Him until a few years ago. Christians you agree with may have this pseudo-veil, but what about the ones you don’t agree with you?

What about experiences they have sans veil? Because you have identified them as mistakes, do you really think they are mistakes? Or possibly that is the only way your mind can process them. Have you ever considered the possibility that they are not mistakes? Perhaps you can get closer to God.

Once you die to self and live in Him, the veil has been eliminated. Personally, I enjoy having a body (and mind) not temporarily veiled. Perfection beyond this earthly expression is something I anticipate, but in the mean time …

When Jesus conquered death, the veil was torn in half. (Although trying to repair that veil seems to be some people’s goal in life…) I admit I am speaking literally. Maybe the “mistake” was using the word “veil.” No cover is necessary when you are dealing with honest Christianity.

Hi, Patti-

I think it is probably the case that we are using "veil" to mean two different things. As a mystic, I've experienced God and Christ and other spiritual beings directly through visions and dreams. I believe these are real experiences that have strengthened a person connection with God.

However, the problem comes when I try to translate these experiences into expression to other people and/or to form religious concepts from them. It is one thing to experience it spiritually (without veil) and quite another thing to express it conceptually (with words). As soon as I take the experience and try to formulate into something I can express, it is filtered through my brain, senses, and available vocabulary. This limits the experience and no matter what I try, it is impossible to contain experiences of God inside my limited brain and language. Music and art come closer, but are still limited. So, upon making the spiritual experience (personal) into religion (communal), the veil of my bodily limitations is felt.

This is why I am very careful to delineate in my own spiritual path what is the heart (experience and connecting to God, which is everlasting) from the rest of it (beliefs, doctrines, sharing/expressing my faith, which may change as I gain better ways to interpret my experiences and better ways to express them).

I don't believe that people make mistakes in their actual experience of God. I believe all who seek God, find Him. I just believe that no matter who we are, in this life we are limited, and God is not. This incongruity means that no one will have THE answers, because even those who have drawn closest to God will inevitably find limitations in expressing and interpreting their experience of it. This is why I believe there is no one church that everyone should belong to. There are people who are connected to God and experiencing Christ in them everywhere, and their interpretations of that will differ, even though the underlying truth they are experiencing will not. I keep an open mind about most religions and beliefs, because of this. I don't see them as mistakes, but I see all human expression of experience with God as woefully inadequate. Often beautiful, but almost certainly inept. The more one tries to define and grasp and hold the Infinite in finite concepts and words, the more one recrafts the veil.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Oh Snoopy, it is an automatic reflex. Buddhism and Christianity are NOT on the same playing field and I wasn't getting defensive. I did think it was a nice try. (but no go)

You might swat something innocent with that reflex Patti

I'm still in the dark as to what my nice try was but if my comparison is invalid because of the traditions not being on the same playing field then I defer to your garden.

s.

[pattimax]

Path Of One
A "woefully inadequate" descrption is definitely an individual description. I really don't think we are too far apart (although there are major differences) and I don't want you to assume that I am being sensitive, but I object to your presumption of speaking for all Christians.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

i am aware of no historical information which would lend creedence to the fact that the Bible, in any iteration, was inspirired or informed by the Buddhadharma. if it were, i suggest, then it would not be rife with wrong view and teachings which are diametrically opposed to those the Buddha taught.

that the two traditions have things in common is, well, common. many traditions have teachings in common with eachother, espeically the major world religions as they all espouse a valid moral and ethical path.

i agree with Thomas, beings that feel that these two traditions are, essentially, two sides of the same coin do not seem to have a grasp of the depth of the teachings and i can only wonder at how progress can be made upon ones spiritual journey.

since this is the Christian forum i won't say much more than that.. but.. i'd ask.. please... don't blaspheme my tradition too much, you really have no idea of the negative consequences of such actions and it concerns me.

metta,

~v

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i am aware of no historical information which would lend creedence to the fact that the Bible, in any iteration, was inspirired or informed by the Buddhadharma. if it were, i suggest, then it would not be rife with wrong view

Can you say this in this garden?!

(suggestion from lawyer: you're using a very technical, strictly Buddhist definition of the term "wrong view")

s.