Buddhist Buddha vs Jesus

[Grip Docility]

What do you think of the notion of "dying daily".....after which, there is "no more I but Christ that liveth?"

this isn't what Buddhism means.

 

[Grip Docility]

We don't see any "sin" (aka offenses against a deity). Instead, we do see the existence of unskillful behavior which does influence our rebirth.

We see no enduring soul or personal identity; after all, we do see a "personal identity" which continually changes from moment to moment, from thought to thought, etc. I am not the same person I was 1 second ago, much less 10 years ago, for example.

Additionally, "eternal life" is not seen as the summum bonum - take for example, many individuals who perceive suffering in the idea of life (much less eternal life), seek eternal death & nothingness or annihilation, and then take their own life in suicide. We, as Buddhists, understand that both individuals - the one who seek eternal life, and the one who seeks eternal death - are actually searching for a deeper goal: lasting peace & bliss. This is what the we identify as the summum bonum, and we find great hope in that, and in our testable, methodical Path which leads to it.

Jesus taught the value of the human Soul. Christ and Buddha are not the same.

Matthew 10:28

 

[ananda]

Jesus taught the value of the human Soul. Christ and Buddha are not the same.

Matthew 10:28

I don't perceive the existence of a "soul" (in the sense of an enduring, unchanging personality).

I agree with you though, that Christ and the Buddha are not the same.

 

[RaymondG]

this isn't what Buddhism means.

Two Christians can read the same verse and get two different meanings and doctrines.

How is it that you feel you can speak for everyone in Buddhism?

 

[Grip Docility]

Two Christians can read the same verse and get two different meanings and doctrines.

How is it that you feel you can speak for everyone in Buddhism?

In witness, it is well to connect with what a person knows. In Truth, there is ONLY ONE.

John 14:6

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Not exactly. We are taught to deconstruct our attachment to this mundane level of reality and to focus instead on its underlying foundation.

E.g. - to use a more modern day metaphor - Instead of being attached to the digital pet on my computer desktop, I should look deeper, into the programming which caused that "digital pet" to arise. Then, instead of being attached to the programming, I should look even deeper, into the hardware which enables the programming to arise. Then, look into the atomic particles which enable the hardware to arise. Etc. The digital pet - seen in terms of the component parts which creates it - becomes insignificant, at that point, once I understand the deeper layers of reality which composes them.

Yes, very practical. That is why I think some Christians are attracted to Buddhism and some of its practices, as mental hygiene and practical ways of dealing with attachments which are the root of our sin and suffering.

 

[ananda]

Yes, very practical. That is why I think some Christians are attracted to Buddhism and some of its practices, as mental hygiene and practical ways of dealing with attachments which are the root of our sin and suffering.

I agree with you. What you wrote here was one of the major reasons I converted from Christianity - Buddhism provided a very practical, detailed methodology that I could not find in Christianity.

Suffering, in Christianity, was - for the most part & in my experience - only addressed with the advice to "pray and have faith" - it didn't work for me. This led me to investigate other philosophies and religions for a few years, before settling on early Buddhism as practiceable and practical (which I held concurrently as a philosophy for living alongside my Christian faith for some time). I then came to appreciate its reasoned approach to metaphysics in other respects, which resulted in my full conversion.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I agree with you. What you wrote here was one of the major reasons I converted from Christianity - Buddhism provided a very practical, detailed methodology that I could not find in Christianity.

Suffering, in Christianity, was - for the most part & in my experience - only addressed with the advice to "pray and have faith" - it didn't work for me. This led me to investigate other philosophies and religions for a few years, before settling on early Buddhism as practiceable and practical (which I held concurrently as a philosophy for living alongside my Christian faith for some time). I then came to appreciate its reasoned approach to metaphysics in other respects, which resulted in my full conversion.

And "offering it up". The suffering, that is.

Do you not miss the personal dimension of Christianity? God is not just a principle but a loving person. Of course that is a matter of faith and some will claim that is is also a lived experience of being loved.

 

[Tayla]

What are the differences and similarities? Could they be same person reincarnation?

They are definitely *not* the same person. Jesus was the Son of God, the Savior. Buddha was, well, Buddha; a mere man who had some visions containing false teaching.

 

[ananda]

And "offering it up". The suffering, that is.

I'm not sure I know what that means, in a practical sense.

Do you not miss the personal dimension of Christianity? God is not just a principle but a loving person. Of course that is a matter of faith and some will claim that is is also a lived experience of being loved.

There is a similar personal dimension in Buddhism that includes love as well - loving-kindness and compassion for fellow sufferers in life.

On the other hand, we do not find the need to love something that we cannot verify & know truly exists. Such a blind faith may make someone feel better and comforted in one sense, but it also cultivates complacency rather than self-development towards greater mastery. E.g. Would you advise a child to have faith that her elders would care for her all her life, or would you encourage her towards learning & self mastery?

 

[holo]

And "offering it up". The suffering, that is.

I've been wondering what people mean by that.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I've been wondering what people mean by that.

Just as Jesus offered up himself as a sacrifice so also we offer our own sufferings in unity with his.

Read all about it:
Salvifici Doloris (February 11, 1984) | John Paul II

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'm not sure I know what that means, in a practical sense.

There is a similar personal dimension in Buddhism that includes love as well - loving-kindness and compassion for fellow sufferers in life.

On the other hand, we do not find the need to love something that we cannot verify & know truly exists. Such a blind faith may make someone feel better and comforted in one sense, but it also cultivates complacency rather than self-development towards greater mastery. E.g. Would you advise a child to have faith that her elders would care for her all her life, or would you encourage her towards learning & self mastery?

Let me think about that while I vacuum the floors.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Almost done but time for another break.

Of course that is the problem most Christians have with Buddhism, earning your own salvation. But then you do not have a God supremely offending by human sin requiring a divine perfect sacrifice.

I am also thinking that part of the love of a Christian, at least me, is for the awesome beautiful mystery of our existence and then believing that the foundation of it is personal rather than impersonal. And of course, takes on human existence as well.

 

[ananda]

Almost done but time for another break.

Of course that is the problem most Christians have with Buddhism, earning your own salvation. But then you do not have a God supremely offending by human sin requiring a divine perfect sacrifice.

I am also thinking that part of the love of a Christian, at least me, is for the awesome beautiful mystery of our existence and then believing that the foundation of it is personal rather than impersonal. And of course, takes on human existence as well.

I believe that is a misconception - we are not "earning our own salvation".

Rather, I would say "we are ever learning & working towards greater wisdom which dispels greater degrees of discontentment & suffering", just as any good parent would encourage their child to grow, learn & gain mastery of their world around them, rather than to stay simple and helpless. Why? Because an unmastered, helpless 20 year old possessing only the knowledge, mind, and wisdom of a simple 5 year old will surely face many disappointments, discontentments & sufferings in life, and can't always expect her parent to save her.

 

[FireDragon76]

There is no definite article in the Greek of Hebrews 9:27

When the 'the' is put in, one might think of it as 'the great white throne judgement'

But that is not what it says

A man dies once, and there is 'krisis' after that

Reincarnationists believe that as well, upon death one has judgement which determines their future state - whether a new incarnation or some other realm and another incarnation later on.

So Hebrews 9:27 is
Not
A clobber verse against reincarnation, I have heard people use that verse as a quick dismissal of reincarnation, but it is simply not justified in the Koine Greek

I don't know much about Buddha, I don't think Jesus was the same person, but the bible does not deny reincarnation, in fact, think of the disciples asking "who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

Jesus's answer was that it was neither one, but the concept of it possibly being the man himself that sinned, causing him to be born blind, was not negated.

The disciples obviously viewed it as a viable option.

The bible neither confirms nor denies reincarnation, and there is the puzzling passage where Jesus says John the Baptist was Elijah -- yet Elijah as Elijah is recognizable at the transformation, when Moses who did die and Elijah who never died were there.

Jesus meant that John the Baptist was a type (typos) of Elijah.

Some early Christians did believe in the pre-existence of souls, for instance, any of the early Christian Platonists, such as Origen of Alexandria or Evagrius of Pontus, both of whom had a significant influence on the Christian mystical tradition.

 

[FireDragon76]

Almost done but time for another break.

Of course that is the problem most Christians have with Buddhism, earning your own salvation. But then you do not have a God supremely offending by human sin requiring a divine perfect sacrifice.

Most western forms of Christianity have a highly juridical view of salvation, so that's why they see it that way.

They're similar in the sense that the goal for both of them was to put an end to suffering, but the perspective of time is different. Buddha talks about here and now, while Jesus (also) talked about the future/eternity.

Many scholars believe Jesus actually taught that the Kingdom of God was a new social order based on the values found in the Sermon on the Mount- that Jesus' teachings were not as otherworldly as the religion eventually came to be.

 

[zippy2006]

I do see the acceptance of "emergent realities" in the early Buddhist texts. We are merely taught to not attach to them, because attachment to ever-changing emergent realities causes suffering.

I actually just finished a research paper on a related topic and in early Buddhism the ontological reality of emergent properties was clearly denied. They were said to be empty of own being (svabhava-sunya). The only exception was the collection of fundamental atom-like realities of the universe referred to as dharmas, one of which was nirvana itself. Nagarjuna broke from this tradition in the 2nd century, but many schools retained the basic structure (and the reductionistic approach).

This is clearly reflected in practice, for Buddhist focus aims to break down experiences into smaller component parts. This is done progressively through an increasingly dense perceptual resolution. It is also a basic psychological fact that prolonged exposure to meditation results in an increased awareness of subtle internal phenomena. Thus the reductionism is theoretical and practical.

 

[ananda]

I actually just finished a research paper on a related topic and in early Buddhism the ontological reality of emergent properties was clearly denied. They were said to be empty of own being (svabhava-sunya).

Isn't "Svabhava-sunya" a Sanskrit term? As I understand it, Pali is used in early Buddhism. I haven't seen "svabhava-sunya" in the early Buddhist texts (Nikayas) - do you have a reference?

However, in terms of the core idea, we may not be in disagreement: "emergent realities" exist in a conventional sense, but they have no inherent self (or being), and are thus unworthy to attach to. They can ultimately be only a source of suffering.

The only exception was the collection of fundamental atom-like realities of the universe referred to as dharmas, one of which was nirvana itself. This is clearly reflected in practice, for Buddhist focus aims to break down experiences into smaller component parts. This is done progressively through an increasingly dense perceptual resolution. It is also a basic psychological fact that prolonged exposure to meditation results in an increased awareness of subtle internal phenomena. Thus the reductionism is theoretical and practical.

I agree, it is practical and quite useful.

 

[zippy2006]

Isn't "Svabhava-sunya" a Sanskrit term? As I understand it, Pali is used in early Buddhism. I haven't seen "svabhava-sunya" in the early Buddhist texts (Nikayas) - do you have a reference?

Indeed, you are correct. It is a Sanskrit term from a Mahayana text. Perhaps this is not as early as you prefer. I guess I don't know how early early Buddhism is.

However, in terms of the core idea, we may not be in disagreement: "emergent realities" exist in a conventional sense, but they have no inherent self (or being), and are thus unworthy to attach to. They can ultimately be only a source of suffering.

Right, that is the idea.

Do the Pali texts see nirvana as ontologically distinct from samsara? Is nirvana thought to have inherent being?