Why I choose Jesus over Buddha

[AHIMSA]

I understand that your citation of the Four Noble Truths was genuine. However, in setting them up in opposition to a selection of quotations of the Chrisitian scriptures not only fails to examine them in the context of each respective culture, it also fails to make any legitimite point.

Jesus, for example, is not addressing the type of human suffering (in the quotes you cited) that Buddha is addressing in the Four Noble Truths.

Buddhism, for example, does not believe that life is not something to embrace or enjoy, though you implied otherwise.

Both Buddhism and Christianity do entertain a similiar notion of original sin, at least in the respect that human beings are born being shy of their ultimate capacity or potential.

While the teachings of Jesus you cited are in reference to one's eternal salvation, a salvation from human sin, the teaching of the Buddha are in reference to the way in which human consciousness interacts with the world around it and the internal tension and anxiety that arises from this interaction.

Essentially, Buddha was offering a way out, a mode of consciousness that would allow one to supercede the endless generation of vain desires, fantasies, attachments and ultimately, delusions that perpepuate this internal suffering.
Reality is in a state of such constant, rapid change that, not only is this not initially percieved, but that it becomes rather easy for the human mind to sink into habitual patterns, to construct false methods and venues through which this overly complexy reality can be reduced for the sake of momentary relief or comfort. While providing short term comfort, it is also the origin of enormous suffering as our constructed ideas of reality and reality itself begin to clash.
Buddha taught a path of meditation, of sitting back, of obersving the fluid nature of reality, of observing consciousness, our habits and our methods of coping, and a way in which we could release ourselves from the cycle of suffering perpepuated from this false idea of the world.

Essentially, Buddhism is about tuning our mind to match the reality of existence, rather than (as most people do) trying to make reality match the initial and false perceptions of our mind via the senses.

Comparing this to Jesus saying "I am the bread of life" then becomes somewhat ridiculous. Does consuming Jesus free one from the state of internal tension that the mind has produced through interaction with an extensively fluid reality?

Even the most faithful of Christians have not neccessarily resolved the question of suffering....especially when considering that Christianity is concerned largely with attainment of an afterlife.

 

[Veritas]

AHISMA wrote:
I understand that your citation of the Four Noble Truths was genuine. However, in setting them up in opposition to a selection of quotations of the Chrisitian scriptures not only fails to examine them in the context of each respective culture, it also fails to make any legitimite point.

Jesus, for example, is not addressing the type of human suffering (in the quotes you cited) that Buddha is addressing in the Four Noble Truths.

I disagree. Could you elaborate more on the different types of suffering.

Buddhism, for example, does not believe that life is not something to embrace or enjoy, though you implied otherwise.

I set up the word "dispassion", and what I thought that entails, and contrasted it to the connectiveness I see arising from the tension of individual relationships in the Christian faith.

Both Buddhism and Christianity do entertain a similiar notion of original sin, at least in the respect that human beings are born being shy of their ultimate capacity or potential.

I see the similarity.

While the teachings of Jesus you cited are in reference to one's eternal salvation, a salvation from human sin, the teaching of the Buddha are in reference to the way in which human consciousness interacts with the world around it and the internal tension and anxiety that arises from this interaction.

I think I understand how you would see my examples as lacking. But I still believe these contrasts are interesting. Jesus teachings are in reference to one's eternal salvation, but they do apply to the here and now as well. Are not Buddha's teachings in reference to a type of eternal salvation (Nirvana) and also apply to the here and now?

Essentially, Buddha was offering a way out, a mode of consciousness that would allow one to supercede the endless generation of vain desires, fantasies, attachments and ultimately, delusions that perpepuate this internal suffering.
Reality is in a state of such constant, rapid change that, not only is this not initially percieved, but that it becomes rather easy for the human mind to sink into habitual patterns, to construct false methods and venues through which this overly complexy reality can be reduced for the sake of momentary relief or comfort. While providing short term comfort, it is also the origin of enormous suffering as our constructed ideas of reality and reality itself begin to clash.

I agree with the problems of humanity you've given as examples. And I understand Buddha offers a way out. I think to say suffering is only caused by reality clashing with ideas of reality is wrong. Partly because reality itself can cause suffering apart from ideas, and partly because reality clashing with ideas does not nessecarily always cause suffering.

Buddha taught a path of meditation, of sitting back, of obersving the fluid nature of reality, of observing consciousness, our habits and our methods of coping, and a way in which we could release ourselves from the cycle of suffering perpepuated from this false idea of the world.

I see. I think sitting back would help in certain circumstances; and could be appropriate. But always simply observing and trying to release ourselves, and maybe successfully doing so, seems to me... very dispassionate. Very different from what Christ taught. To take up your own cross basically. To suffer. It's interesting isn't it, how Christ offers salvation to us, frees us, yet asks us to suffer for and with Him. This might just be tip of the iceberg in understanding the depth of Love, the centerpoint of what Christ was trying to teach us.

Essentially, Buddhism is about tuning our mind to match the reality of existence, rather than (as most people do) trying to make reality match the initial and false perceptions of our mind via the senses.

Well, I would disagree that, I think. Actually, I'm not quite sure I understand what is being said. Are you saying that what we gather by our senses are all false? And what do you mean by senses? Taste, touch, smell,hearing, and seeing?

Comparing this to Jesus saying "I am the bread of life" then becomes somewhat ridiculous. Does consuming Jesus free one from the state of internal tension that the mind has produced through interaction with an extensively fluid reality?

Heh, yes. But ridiculous in what way? I compared it because it is different. I see Jesus giving us truth through our senses. Every sense becomes involved in our knowledge of Him. It is a good reminder in our forgetful minds. The Truth sets you free.

Even the most faithful of Christians have not neccessarily resolved the question of suffering....especially when considering that Christianity is concerned largely with attainment of an afterlife.

Oh, you mean escape suffering here? No, I would agree that no Christian has. Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. Whole book in the Bible written about it. ;)

 

[Solo]

Thanks Solo, as usual your insights have been a radiant display of intellectual investigation and careful consideration.

You are most welcome, Ahimsa. Once one reaches a point of understanding in the truth of God's revelation, there is not much intellectual investigation or consideration left concerning the false religious systems of man; instead it is an opportunity to grow in faith by the regeneration of the Word of God apart from the world's lies and deceptions, and to grow in spiritual maturity as such faith is exercised.

 

[AHIMSA]

I suppose I should clarify, Buddha is not preaching against freedom from external suffering, he is not, for example, saying that if you get pierced by a sword you will not feel pain, or if your family dies in a car accident you will not experience pain and struggle.
He is however teaching the way of freedom from internal suffering, a freedom that will largely cushion and diminish the degree of suffering that we recieve from factors beyond one's control. If my house gets destroyed in a hurricane, I may very well experience suffering...however if I have attained detachment from material possession and paid attention to the consistency of change...coming to see the transitory nature of reality, the loss of my possessions will affect me considerably less...and perhaps, if I have attained a higher degree of understanding, this loss will not affect me at all.

Are not Buddha's teachings in reference to a type of eternal salvation (Nirvana) and also apply to the here and now?

Buddha taught one thing; suffering and the cessation of suffering. His teachings are pragmatic and apply here and now, in this moment, concerned with liberation from our self-imposed bondage in this life. Because the Christian and Buddhist ideas of "salvation" are so different (to the extent that the term barely applies to Buddhist thought) it's difficult to convey the Buddhist position on "eternal salvation".

Nirvana is without qualities, unconditoned and indescribable.

But always simply observing and trying to release ourselves, and maybe successfully doing so, seems to me... very dispassionate.

One does not have to withdraw from life to be detached from it. However, there is some merit to this. Not everyone has the drive, the will or even the need to experience the level of inner freedom that the Buddha lived in. They are content to be passion driven to various extents. Yet the price of this is also suffering, to various extents depending on the degree of one's attachment. Not everyone feels the pain or sting of living in resistence to the transitory nature of life to the same degree, and the suffering caused by grasping is percived to be deeper by some more than others. Buddha recognized this....and thus did not believe his teachings had to be followed by everyone...he encouraged his followers to make their decisions about following the path according to their experience. Thus one can integrate much of Buddhist practice in their life without neccessarily being Buddhist themselves.

Very different from what Christ taught. To take up your own cross basically. To suffer. It's interesting isn't it, how Christ offers salvation to us, frees us, yet asks us to suffer for and with Him

Compassion is a central tenet of the Buddhist religion. And again, we have different ideas of suffering in mind. Surely, the Buddhist path itsef involves a kind of suffering...the ultimate example of self denial. In the Mahayanna tradition, there is the noble notion of the Bodhisattva...the being who, once at the threshhold of nirvana, consciously remains in this world of suffering to labor towards the enlightenment and freedom of all beings. It is in this sense that the spiritual journey is described as an inverted mountain. A Warrior-Bodhisattva journeys downwards, into the very heart of human suffering in order to reveal the innate warmth and goodness of the human condition, like a radiant beam of light.

Christianity is largely concerned with freeing us from a metaphsyical or theological dilmena in which we are ultimately prevented from entering heaven because of our sinful nature. Thus, one's belief in certain ideas is central to salvation...to avoiding eternal damnation. This element of Christianity, the salvation element of Christ's mission, does not really have any effect on suffering in this life...its theology. "Consuming Christ" does not free us from the suffering that we create for ourselves through false perceptions, through grasping and attachment.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Buddha's teachings are all circular at the core. His path does not guaranteee salvation and even as the Buddha lay dying he was unsure of his future state.

Check this out.....

Near his death (483 B.C.) Buddha (The Enlightened One) told his followers, "Regardless of how many laws you have kept, or even if you pray 5 times a day, you cannot be free from your sin. Even though you burn yourself, even though I become a hermit, or am reborn another 10 times, I also shall not be saved." (Manuscript, Praising Temple, Chiengmai Thailand).

Buddha taught that he was not a "god", but only a man, a truth seeker. But on his death bed Buddha taught that there would be a future Messiah, "Lord of Mercies", who would be able to free men of their sins. Buddha said, "...He is the Lord of Mercies, His name shall be called the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. He is all knowing, all wise. He knows all that is in the human heart. He is Lord of all the angels and of all humans. No one is greater than He." (Sutrapridot 3:107).


http://www.bebaptized.org/buddha.htm

 

[Veritas]

AHIMSA wrote:
I suppose I should clarify, Buddha is not preaching against freedom from external suffering, ....
He is however teaching the way of freedom from internal suffering, a freedom that will largely cushion and diminish the degree of suffering that we recieve from factors beyond one's control.

So, we are speaking of external and internal suffering. You said: "Buddha is not preaching against freedom from external suffering" I guess I don't really understand that. If he is NOT preaching AGAINST freedom from external suffering.... Then he is preaching freedom from external suffering. Is this a typo?

Also I'm really not getting the difference between internal and external suffering still.

Buddha taught one thing; suffering and the cessation of suffering. His teachings are pragmatic and apply here and now, in this moment, concerned with liberation from our self-imposed bondage in this life. Because the Christian and Buddhist ideas of "salvation" are so different (to the extent that the term barely applies to Buddhist thought) it's difficult to convey the Buddhist position on "eternal salvation".

Nirvana is without qualities, unconditoned and indescribable.

I thought so. I find the pragmatism fine, but to a limited extent. To me it has the initial qualities of the teachings of Jesus.

.....Buddha ..... did not believe his teachings had to be followed by everyone...he encouraged his followers to make their decisions about following the path according to their experience. Thus one can integrate much of Buddhist practice in their life without neccessarily being Buddhist themselves.

Hmm... As long as you're not trying to follow Christ too. Jesus is very exclusivistic in what He says.

.....And again, we have different ideas of suffering in mind. Surely, the Buddhist path itsef involves a kind of suffering...the ultimate example of self denial.

This element of Christianity, the salvation element of Christ's mission, does not really have any effect on suffering in this life...its theology. "Consuming Christ" does not free us from the suffering that we create for ourselves through false perceptions, through grasping and attachment.

Well..if this is what you mean by "suffering": A struggling with false perceptions. I think consuming Christ does free us from that. Because Christ is Truth. When we follow Truth, false perceptions fall away.

 

[AHIMSA]

In my interpretation of Buddhism, suffering is essentialy a state of mind. There are at least two dependent factors that arise in the process of suffering: the situation or event and the manner in which one's mind actually responds to this event. In many cases, one does not have the power to alter or prevent the situation or event, and thus, we often consider suffering inescapable. However, if one can alter the way in which their mind responds to it, then suffering can be avoided.

This is why Buddhism is rightfully called "a science of the mind". The complete focus of Buddhism is how the mind responds to the world around it and which responses are responsbile for human suffering.

The mind continually grasps at things, searching for permanence when there is none. In Buddhism this is the primary cause of suffering. Note how much suffering originates because of loss. What we call loss, Buddhism would say we never had to lose in the first place...we only imagined that we had these things. In a world where everything is changing in every moment, nothing can be truly possessed or grapsed, it is as though trying to capture smoke in your fingers. This is the complete fluid nature of reality. In essence, human beings seem to have taken an issue with change. A prime example is the notion of life after death, we like to imagine that our identity is preserved in death, that there is a self that lives past it. Generally, our resistance to change, to the transition that we have labelled death, causes a great deal of suffering. Our pervasive fear of death, from the Buddhist perspective, somewhat taints our experience of life. Death and life can not be separated, they are two sides of the same coin, death is part of life, and clinging to the hope of living past death prevents us from actually looking at reality head on. This is but one small example.

Buddhism is a religion of the mind in that it is a vehicle for refining our consciousness, changing the way that our mind reacts to life so that it reacts in manner that does not cause suffering.

It is in this sense that Buddhism is relative...not for everyone. Seek the vehicle that accomplishes this transformation of the mind in you.

A struggling with false perceptions. I think consuming Christ does free us from that. Because Christ is Truth. When we follow Truth, false perceptions fall away.

Buddhism would not hesitate to say that religions like Christianity can, at times, actually contribute to suffering, depending upon the individual.

People who have false perceptions do not think of them as false perceptions, rather they think of them as truth. People might read scriptures and say that what they read is truth and freeing, yet the authenticity of that can only be confirmed by the results.

To say that Christ frees you from false perceptions has to be a statement that one can justify and be proven by the results of "consuming Christ". Yet what Christianity claims to be the true nature of reality is largely a matter of faith, a truth confirmed in one through faith.

Belief in Christ does not neccessitate a reformation of the mind so that it responds differently to transitions of life. In many cases, it helps people resist what Buddhism considers to be facts of existence: that death is a natural part of life.

 

[Soma-Sight]

What we call loss, Buddhism would say we never had to lose in the first place...we only imagined that we had these things. In a world where everything is changing in every moment, nothing can be truly possessed or grapsed, it is as though trying to capture smoke in your fingers. This is the complete fluid nature of reality.

Which brings us right back to what we started with....

Nothing.

Buddhism essentially offers you nothing.

There are no formally stated doctrines or creeds that one can concretely hold on to.

If you asked the Buddha what you need to do to have eternal life he would either shrug his shoulders or just say ...... MUUUU!!!!!

There are many instances of when the Buddha was asked direct questions on the nature of reality and he would side step the issue or reply with a nonsensical answer.


The Word of Jesus Christ in stark contrast has a very clear and concise idea of what reality is and what you as a believer are commissioned to do.

When asked about the important topics like death, life and God.... Jesus gives clear answers on the subjects rather than "Koans" that lead to frustration.....

 

[AHIMSA]

There are no formally stated doctrines or creeds that one can concretely hold on to.

Exactly! Some can wade into the waters of uncertainty and live without grasping anything, living in their own being and in nothing else. Freedom is holding onto nothing...simply being. This the goal.

But perhaps it is true that others need to hold onto something to survive, and need life codified and indoctrinated in order to provide a sense of stability. Buddhism would say that this need or drive to have everything laid out and defined for us,so that all we need to do is accept it, is a fundamental resistance against f reality.

Buddhism essentially offers you nothing.

Buddhism offers us emptiness...

...and as it is said, emptiness is fullness

Jesus gives clear answers on the subjects rather than "Koans" that lead to frustration.....

Really?:

"The secret of the kingdom of God has been give to you. But to those on the outside everything is in parables so that they "may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding"

And he spoke only to them in parables...

Jesus' illustration of the Kingdom as a mustard seed would have confused many...the the mustard seed essentially grew into this giant weed that was a source of irritation to farmers.

"He who who seeks to save his life will lose it, he who loses it for my sake will find it"

 

[Soma-Sight]

"The secret of the kingdom of God has been give to you. But to those on the outside everything is in parables so that they "may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding"

I can relate to this.

Anyone who is born again has an experience which makes literal the parables extolled by Jesus.

Not an experience of ego death and nothingness.... but one of fullness and subsequent responsibility.

 

[AHIMSA]

My point is that Jesus seems to confuse people at times on purpose. Just as Jesus spoke confusion for the sake of wisdom, so do the Zen koans create confusion for a higher purpose....it is for the sake of understanding.

Not an experience of ego death and nothingness.... but one of fullness and subsequent responsibility.

Christ said you must lose your self...clearly he is speaking of some kind of egodeath....Paul said we must be crucified with Christ....clearly he is speaking of some kind of ego death. Yes, in different terms than Buddhism, but somewhat similar too.

Emptiness is fullness. You are wrong to speak of nothing as the aim of the Buddhist practice.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Christ said you must lose your self...clearly he is speaking of some kind of egodeath....Paul said we must be crucified with Christ....clearly he is speaking of some kind of ego death. Yes, in different terms than Buddhism, but somewhat similar too.

Emptiness is fullness. You are wrong to speak of nothing as the aim of the Buddhist practice.

This is true to a certain extent from MY experience.

 

[Veritas]

AHISMA wrote:
Christ said you must lose your self...clearly he is speaking of some kind of egodeath....Paul said we must be crucified with Christ....clearly he is speaking of some kind of ego death. Yes, in different terms than Buddhism, but somewhat similar too.

Emptiness is fullness. You are wrong to speak of nothing as the aim of the Buddhist practice.

Well, to me, the statement, "emptiness is fullness" is incomplete. Really, it is illogical on its own. Christ completes that statement. Empty yourself, but to Him, and God fills you. Now the statement makes sense.

 

[AHIMSA]

Well, to me, the statement, "emptiness is fullness" is incomplete.

On the contrary, Buddhism posists the lack of any inherent self identity in anything. All things, as they arise, are propped up by a series of other countless factors and thus, everything is "empty" of an indepedent identity...nothing exists on its own but only in connection with something else.

This is called emptiness.

Yet, the lack of any fixed, static or permanent identity means that one is not permanently subject to any quality or form, there is nothing about oneself that will forever endure, and your own existence depends upon countless other things...the entire universe comes to be synthesized and expressed in you.

Though we are empty of the individual, we are filled with everything.

Thus emptiness becomes an unmitigated and limitless fullness.

 

[Veritas]

On the contrary, Buddhism posists the lack of any inherent self identity in anything. All things, as they arise, are propped up by a series of other countless factors and thus, everything is "empty" of an indepedent identity...nothing exists on its own but only in connection with something else.

This is called emptiness.

Well, I thank you for the explaination, but to me it still doesn't make sense. One, I know I have an identity, and you do to, as well as other things. I see it as the basis of logic and reason. I rejoice for what identity entails, I am special and so are you. And Two, to say everything is not really a thing in a sense, voids even the meaning of everything

 

[AHIMSA]

Buddhism does not negate that you have an identity...however it says that this identity is a synthesis of countless interdependent and impermanent factors that are constantly subject to change.

Trying to grasp the self is like trying to grasp smoke...it seems like it is there, and yes, in one sense it is because we can see it...and yet when one tries to grasp it, it slips between our fingers.

The popular illustration used is a piece of paper. We might say that we have a piece of paper in our hands, and that the paper is the "identity" of this object. Yet, when truly looked at, we find that the paper is made up entirely of non paper elements.

We find that the paper is made of pulp, and that this pulp is essentially made of other elements that we ascribe identity to, such as trees, and yet that these trees are composed of other elements, and thus incorporate the nutrients of the sun and the earth and the rain, and thus so too is the sun and the earth and the rain involved in what has been labelled as paper. Even more so, the identity of this thing as "paper" very much depends upon the person that cuts down the tree, the person that harvests it, the factory that processess pulp and the countless factors and elements involved that make up the apparent identity of "wood cutter" and "factory".

When we try to narrow down what this piece of "paper" is, we find not paper, but millions of other interdependent, non-paper factors that are synthesized in this single object and labeled to be "paper".

Matter is not destroyed, but changed, converted. The identity of a given object is a conscious or subconscious isolation of part of a circular process. It is to look at an infinitely expanding line and place point a and point b upon it and declare everything in the middle to be a given "identity". Just as we have isolated a specific part of the process of changing matter as "paper", according to how it is utilized by us, ...so is the self.

 

[Soma-Sight]

BACK TO THE POINT OF THE THREAD!!!!

JESUS IS UNIQUE!!!

JESUS HAS CHARACTERISTICS THAT NO OTHER HUMAN BEING IN HISTORY FITS! (INCLUDING THE BUDDHA!)

HE IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD

HE IS THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD

HE IS THE BREAD OF LIFE

HE IS THE WAY, TRUTH AND LIFE

HE HOLDS THE KEYS OF HELL AND DEATH

HE IS REPSONSIBLE FOR THE JUDGEMENT OF MEN

HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESURRECTION OF THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE DAMNED

HE IS THE DOOR

HE IS ETERNAL

ETC......

Buddha does not claim to hold these attributes and from all my reading of Buddhist scriptures I find that he is very different and not on the same "plane' as Jesus Christ.....

The Dhammapada...
The Diamond Sutras...
Other various texts....

None of them describe the "Enlightened One" in the same manner as Jesus in any way, shape or form.

BUDDHA WAS A SEEKER!!!!! HE WAS HUMAN!!!!!

HE WAS AND IS NOT GOD!!!!!

WE CAN ALL BE BUDDHAS!!!!


BUT NONE OF US WILL EVER BE JESUS CHRIST.....

 

[Solo]

Good points, Soma Sight.

 

[Karma2Grace]

Christ said you must lose your self...clearly he is speaking of some kind of egodeath....Paul said we must be crucified with Christ....

not at all, Christ is talking about the spritual warfar against satan (world), It is the process of replacing our sinful nature with Christ's nature

Yes, in different terms than Buddhism, but somewhat similar too.

There is no 'Circle' or 'uncertainity' in Christianity

 

[disruptor]

Soma-Sight wrote:

I am merely stating that the fruits of Christ as reported by eye witnesses are superior to the philisophical notions of the Buddha.

I didn’t realise there was a competition.

In any case there’s a school of thought out there which argues that the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity are more than accidental.

According to the theory’s most extreme exponent,Christian Lindtner, the gospels even have earlier Sanskrit versions. And since Judea in Roman times was connected to the Silk Road along which various religious ideas and texts were transmitted, the presence of Buddhism in the Holy Land is no surprise.

Such connections between Buddhism and Christianity continued on into Medieval times. The story of Barlaam and Josaphat was a reworking of the life of the Buddha. The Buddha disguised as St. Josaphat is still in the Roman Catholic martyrology to this day (27th November) - which means the Buddha officially is a Catholic Saint.

Buddha: "The avaricious do not go to heaven..... The wise one, however, rejoicing in charity, becomes thereby happy in the beyond." (Dhammapada 13.11)
Jesus: "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Matthew 19:21)
Buddha: "Consider others as yourself." (Dhammapada 10.1)
Jesus: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31)
Buddha: "If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words." (Majjhima Nikaya 21.6)
Jesus: "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." (Luke 6:29).

These are from this book on the parallel sayings of Jesus and Buddha.