What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhist?

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
steveb1
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by steveb1 »

uan wrote:
steveb1 wrote:
Of all religions, Christianity is focused on the life of a human being. While Buddhism is essentially indebted to Gotama, its adherents do not see him as God/Son of God/Revealer of Heaven's will and Heaven's secrets. The Dharma, not any particular Buddha, is Buddhism's core focus.
That's one way to look at Christianity. Another valid way is that the focus is really on Jesus's teachings, not just Jesus. Re Buddhism, some traditions have him as a human being who became Buddha, other traditions have him as already being a Buddha who just went through the motions. In Pure Land Buddhism, the focus is on Amitābha, less so the Dharma, as the practitioner, once reborn in Amitābha's Pure Land, will be taught the Dharma. Then there is Guru Yoga where "The Guru is Buddha, the Guru is Dharma, the Guru is also Sangha" (quote taken from Wikipedia).

There is a large devotional tradition around Jesus, but it's his teaching that is most important. Sutras are the teachings of Buddha, and often start out with Buddha and the assembly of 1250 monks and disciples etc and then Buddha goes into his teachings. The new testament of the Bible is very similar, with Jesus giving sermons to his disciples and/or to a group of people (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount).

If you go into the house of a Tibetan, you'll find a shrine with a picture of the HHDL. Go into the house of a Catholic and you'll find a shrine with the picture of the Pope. Are these people worshipping the man, or the what the man represents? It probably boils down to the individual practitioner.

I think it's too easy to say Christians follow a man, but Buddhist follow the Dharma. We're not even talking about the more esoteric/mystical sects within Christianity (or Judaism and Islam).
= = = = = =

Points well taken - there are many who do strive to follow Jesus' teachings, but the intervening, subsequent outcome of his career was, fortunately or not, his resurrection, his ascension into Heaven, his attaining the throne of authority "at God's right hand", his position as Messiah-Designate who on his return will finally be the full Messiah, fulfill the Hebrew prophecies, and judge all humanity. Addtionally, he is considered to be - both during his life and in his apotheosis - divine, the Son of God.

None of these mystical/transcendental traits can be omitted without simultaneously misrepresenting "the fulness of Christ" which Christianity claims to have inherited and constantly guards from misinterpretation. Christ's fulness by definition includes his unique Sonship (whether bestowed during his baptism by John, conferred on him via the resurrection, or eternally belonging to him ontologically); his unique status as Messiah-Designate; his own statement of identity with the Adam Kadmon or Heavenly Christ/Son of Man; his unique status as broker for the Kingdom of Heaven which was no longer only in the future, but was in-breaking even as he spoke, and this as a result of his mission, etc.

Deletion of all or most of these factors really destroys the Christian Jesus - much like Thomas Jefferson's irrational "rationalism" drove him to physically cut out from the New Testament all of those miraculous accounts that so affronted his Enlightenment biases. The Jefferson Bible is simpy a mutilation - as would be Jesus without the nonrational factors - and many significant christological titles and affirmations - that normative Christianity ascribes to him.

Yes, it is possible to practice Jesus' ethic of compassion, but according to Jesus himself, this cannot be done without the nourishment that living, active union with the Sacred provides. Moreover, while Jesus had the Gospel, Buddha had the Dharma, and while in some ways these may be roughly equivalent and compatible (both have an ethic of compassion and a path of dying to the egoic self), still there are differences, the main one being a clear means of spiritual transformation.


Jesus never gave (at least it's never been recorded) a simple diagnosis of the human condition and various means to transcend that condition. Jesus, unlike Buddha, left no system of thinking and meditation by which the practitioner could enter the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. Jesus did say a few things about entering the Kingdom through loving self-sacrifice, selling property and giving the proceeds to the poor, loving much/forgiving much ... but, unlike Buddha, Jesus had no specific program for spiritual transformation. As far as we can tell, early Christian prayer was just that - mostly petitionary, Jewish-type prayer, with the only addition being that Christians now prayed to the Jewish God "through" or "in" Jesus' name.

But I know of no NT prayer, or prayer of the early church period, that was meditative or contemplative. There was a prayer of "stilling the heart before God" practiced in the East, but it was never widely practiced or taught to the masses - and still, the object of that prayer was not clear-mindedness or Bodhi, but rather at most union with the Hebrew God and/or the Spirit of Jesus himself. And there is no evidence that this kind of contemplative prayer went back to Jesus' own practice.

So other than following Jesus' instructions to make your prayer simple, silent, non-wordy and humble; practicing Torah piety with no hope of reward from those you have helped; and attempting to view God through Jesus' own "lens" ... Christianity seems relatively clumsy in contrast to the precise and manifold methods of Buddhism.

You write: "it's his teaching that is most important"

Unfortunately, it is not his teaching that is commonly "pushed" in churches. It's more "Are you saved, Brother? ... If you died right now, do you know where you'd be going? .... Follow the rules now, for Heavenly reward later" ... etc. Be that as it may, I can't really agree that his teaching is most important, first - because his teaching points beyond itself to the operations of the specifically Jewish-sectarian community he founded - so it has a social-pragmatic dynamic less universal than Buddhism's more universal teaching (although Buddha surely spent a huge amount of time in ordering the Sangha); second - because, even in his lifetime, Jesus' teaching was inseparable from the mystical claims he was making about himself as a messianic laborer, Kingdom-agent, divine union mystic/mystical "friend" of and/or embodiment of the Heavenly Son of Man (to whom he testified before Caiaphas), his apparently-related special knowledge of what the future coming of the Son of Man will mean for final disposition of the Earth at the last judgment, his unique familiarity with "the things of God", his related claim to have not only descended from Heaven, but having ascended to Heaven and come down again, his authority to heal, exorcise, and forgive sin in God's name/with God's authority ... A long winded list, I know - but the NT Jesus - the Christian Jesus - is inextricably bound to his teachings - and vice-versa.

So I would say that Jesus is as important as his teachings, because every normative Christian abides by the living source of the teachings, the source that dwells, through the Spirit, in the believer's heart: namely Jesus himself. For most orthodox Christians, the teachings only derive their power from the risen living Christ with whom they have "a personal relationship".

I would venture to guess that if one practices Jesus' teachings, adopts the Sermon on the Mount/Plain as one's ethical center, if one sees God and Spirit and spiritual transformation/entry into the Kingdom through Jesus' eyes or his spiritual perception/"lens" ... then spiritual transformation will occur. ... But is Jesus' "Way", and its successful practice, equivalent to Bodhi, Nirvana, the Unconditioned, the Tathatgatha? Maybe, maybe not. ... :)
uan
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:58 am

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by uan »

steveb1 wrote: Points well taken - there are many who do strive to follow Jesus' teachings, but the intervening, subsequent outcome of his career was, fortunately or not, his resurrection, his ascension into Heaven, his attaining the throne of authority "at God's right hand", his position as Messiah-Designate who on his return will finally be the full Messiah, fulfill the Hebrew prophecies, and judge all humanity. Addtionally, he is considered to be - both during his life and in his apotheosis - divine, the Son of God.

None of these mystical/transcendental traits can be omitted without simultaneously misrepresenting "the fulness of Christ" which Christianity claims to have inherited and constantly guards from misinterpretation. Christ's fulness by definition includes his unique Sonship (whether bestowed during his baptism by John, conferred on him via the resurrection, or eternally belonging to him ontologically); his unique status as Messiah-Designate; his own statement of identity with the Adam Kadmon or Heavenly Christ/Son of Man; his unique status as broker for the Kingdom of Heaven which was no longer only in the future, but was in-breaking even as he spoke, and this as a result of his mission, etc.

Deletion of all or most of these factors really destroys the Christian Jesus - much like Thomas Jefferson's irrational "rationalism" drove him to physically cut out from the New Testament all of those miraculous accounts that so affronted his Enlightenment biases. The Jefferson Bible is simpy a mutilation - as would be Jesus without the nonrational factors - and many significant christological titles and affirmations - that normative Christianity ascribes to him.
Your points are also well taken, and much more eloquently stated than mine! The divinity of Christ is the foundation to the authority, or credibility, of his teachings. But Buddhism has this too. In sutras, they don't say "Thus I have heard, some schmo said ..." Buddha has a litany of titles the he's constantly referred to do, and self-referring, repeatedly: The One That Has Come (Tathagata); Worthy of Offerings or Worthy of Worship (Arhat); Truly Omniscient (Samyak Sambuddha); Perfect in Illumination and Conduct; Well Departed (Sugata); Understanding the World (Lokavit); Supreme (Anuttara); Tamer of Men (Purusa-damya-sarathi); Teacher of Gods and Men (Sasta deva-manusyanam); The World Honored Enlightened One (Buddha-Bhagavan or Buddha-Lokanatha). It's the religious equivalent of one's bona fides. Compared to Buddha, Jesus is just some schmo, son of man.
Yes, it is possible to practice Jesus' ethic of compassion, but according to Jesus himself, this cannot be done without the nourishment that living, active union with the Sacred provides. Moreover, while Jesus had the Gospel, Buddha had the Dharma, and while in some ways these may be roughly equivalent and compatible (both have an ethic of compassion and a path of dying to the egoic self), still there are differences, the main one being a clear means of spiritual transformation.

Jesus never gave (at least it's never been recorded) a simple diagnosis of the human condition and various means to transcend that condition. Jesus, unlike Buddha, left no system of thinking and meditation by which the practitioner could enter the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. Jesus did say a few things about entering the Kingdom through loving self-sacrifice, selling property and giving the proceeds to the poor, loving much/forgiving much ... but, unlike Buddha, Jesus had no specific program for spiritual transformation. As far as we can tell, early Christian prayer was just that - mostly petitionary, Jewish-type prayer, with the only addition being that Christians now prayed to the Jewish God "through" or "in" Jesus' name.
There is a simple diagnosis of the human condition - Adam and Eve and original sin. If you look at the story a bit more as a metaphor, eating from the tree of knowledge, giving man the knowledge of good and evil, is what separates us from God. This is similar to conceptual mind and afflictions that needs to be overcome for us to become enlightened, from a Mahayana perspective.

By accepting Jesus, the Holy Spirit works within a person for spiritual transformation. The HS guides a person to follow the will of God, not their own conceptual/afflicted minds.

I'm not an expert on Christianity, but a person only enters the Kingdom through grace, not through selling property and giving the proceeds to the poor. But a call to give up everything and follow the teachings of Jesus is really no different than Buddhism, if one truly wants to gain enlightenment. Buddha walked away from his life as a prince to seek enlightenment. And if one where to take the Buddhadharma seriously, one would leave behind their property and material things. Attachments to things leads to suffering and all that. Jesus has teachings about this. The whole point behind him saying "a rich man has as much chance of entering heaven as a camel has going through the eye of a needle" is that a rich man has attachments to things and defines himself by his things. How can one get into heaven (or become enlightened) that way?

The language is different, but much of the underlying teaching is very similar.
But I know of no NT prayer, or prayer of the early church period, that was meditative or contemplative. There was a prayer of "stilling the heart before God" practiced in the East, but it was never widely practiced or taught to the masses - and still, the object of that prayer was not clear-mindedness or Bodhi, but rather at most union with the Hebrew God and/or the Spirit of Jesus himself. And there is no evidence that this kind of contemplative prayer went back to Jesus' own practice.

So other than following Jesus' instructions to make your prayer simple, silent, non-wordy and humble; practicing Torah piety with no hope of reward from those you have helped; and attempting to view God through Jesus' own "lens" ... Christianity seems relatively clumsy in contrast to the precise and manifold methods of Buddhism.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gave the classic prayer that a person should pray, which contains the phrase "thy kingdom come, thy will be down, on earth as it is in Heaven." This leads to a spiritual practice, where one removes their ego/self from the equation and follow the will of God. Not their own. I'm sure there's a bit of meditation and contemplation required to really work through that.

Buddhism also encourages humbleness, and not expecting a reward from those you have helped. Not sure about Torah piety, but Judaism does have Kaballah, which is a pretty extensive esoteric tradition that goes a bit beyond piety. The idea of not showing one's acts in public is that often things done in the open are just done for show and have no intrinsic meaning. Chogyam Trungpa goes into this when he talks spiritual materialism. From Wikipedia:
The message in summary is, "Don't try to reinforce your ego through material things, belief systems like religion, or certain emotional states of mind." In his view, the point of religion is to show you that your ego doesn't really exist inherently. Ego is something you build up to make you think you exist, but it is not necessary and in the long run causes more suffering.
The simplicity Jesus instructs sounds very much like what CT is saying.
You write: "it's his teaching that is most important"

Unfortunately, it is not his teaching that is commonly "pushed" in churches. It's more "Are you saved, Brother? ... If you died right now, do you know where you'd be going? .... Follow the rules now, for Heavenly reward later" ... etc. Be that as it may, I can't really agree that his teaching is most important, first - because his teaching points beyond itself to the operations of the specifically Jewish-sectarian community he founded - so it has a social-pragmatic dynamic less universal than Buddhism's more universal teaching (although Buddha surely spent a huge amount of time in ordering the Sangha); second - because, even in his lifetime, Jesus' teaching was inseparable from the mystical claims he was making about himself as a messianic laborer, Kingdom-agent, divine union mystic/mystical "friend" of and/or embodiment of the Heavenly Son of Man (to whom he testified before Caiaphas), his apparently-related special knowledge of what the future coming of the Son of Man will mean for final disposition of the Earth at the last judgment, his unique familiarity with "the things of God", his related claim to have not only descended from Heaven, but having ascended to Heaven and come down again, his authority to heal, exorcise, and forgive sin in God's name/with God's authority ... A long winded list, I know - but the NT Jesus - the Christian Jesus - is inextricably bound to his teachings - and vice-versa.
I'm sure there are lots of churches that do exactly as you say, create rules for people to follow and focus solely on are you saved, etc. But that is not all churches or teachings. It also feels a bit stereotypical, based on appearances. Buddhism teaches us not to rely on external appearances. Also, the corruption of the teachings is not the fault of a teacher who's been dead for 2000 years.

The funny thing is, grace is what gets a person into heaven based on Jesus's teaching, not following the rules. It was the whole rules thing that Judaism had fallen into that Jesus taught against. There are many Buddhist who are full of nothing but rules less a person be born in the hell realms, etc.

What you say of Jesus, and his mystical claims, is no different than found in many traditions of Buddhism. Gotama predicted Maitreya as the next Buddha, etc.
So I would say that Jesus is as important as his teachings, because every normative Christian abides by the living source of the teachings, the source that dwells, through the Spirit, in the believer's heart: namely Jesus himself. For most orthodox Christians, the teachings only derive their power from the risen living Christ with whom they have "a personal relationship".
There are schools of Buddhism where the power of the teachings only derive their power from a personal relationship, with one's guru for instance.

I would venture to guess that if one practices Jesus' teachings, adopts the Sermon on the Mount/Plain as one's ethical center, if one sees God and Spirit and spiritual transformation/entry into the Kingdom through Jesus' eyes or his spiritual perception/"lens" ... then spiritual transformation will occur. ... But is Jesus' "Way", and its successful practice, equivalent to Bodhi, Nirvana, the Unconditioned, the Tathatgatha? Maybe, maybe not. ... :)[/quote]

I have no idea. I posted this on another thread:
I don't know much about Islam, but I was listening to a Imam talk about how "Muslim mystics have enunciated certain paths or ways of attaining higher levels of spirituality in order to feel light of God, for a person to experience God directly ... These are very important steps to be undertaken in order for a person to attain what we call spiritual perfection, the inside of the inside. We have three levels, the outside which is kind of the ritualistic, superficial element which a lot of Muslims engage in. The second level is the inside, which is a kind of traveling within yourself the path to God. The third and the highest level is the inside of the inside, that is God Himself, the Center. Attaining oneness with God. You can never become God, but you can exist within his close proximity, where you are like stars on a sunny day, you see the sun but the stars are also there." In response to a question of what life must be like in that state of being, he went on "You cannot even talk about it, it's ineffable, you can only experience it. The closest we can talk of it is bliss, spiritual bliss."
My own feeling is that there are very advanced levels of realization in other traditions, including Islam, Judaism and Christianity. It's easy to focus on the superficial elements that most practitioners engage in. This is as true in Buddhism as anywhere else. There are many "Buddhist" who just light incense on Buddhas birthday, say some of the right things, etc.
User avatar
Hieros Gamos
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:25 pm

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by Hieros Gamos »

Mr. G wrote:We unequivocally don't believe in an omnipotent God or supreme deity.
Is that our experience?
steveb1
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by steveb1 »

[quote="uan"]

What you say of Jesus, and his mystical claims, is no different than found in many traditions of Buddhism. Gotama predicted Maitreya as the next Buddha, etc. [quote="uan"]

... much good writing snipped ...



========

uan, thanks for your detailed and lengthy reply. You've given me some new stuff to ponder over!

:)
januarysprings
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:03 am

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by januarysprings »

Wesley1982 wrote:Hello,

What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhist? . .
TNH seems to have something to say about this.

In the realm of belief, not too different (except Buddhism isn't as constricting I would say)
For Christian mystics and practicing Buddhists, now we're talking and can have a beer together

Believers need not apply

NEXT.
papaya
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:10 am

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by papaya »

In their current posts, Uan and Steveb1 have greatly clarified some fundamental differences between Christianity and Buddhism. The question of how dogma and doctrine interact with belief and practice in these two worldwide religions has been explored in ways I have never seen before. Congratulations! What I most like about this thread is the absence of competitiveness. The two widely followed ways are explored and compared honestly, thus moving the question originally posed forward: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhist? I am proud to be a part of this discussion

Often times it is necessary to question the question; i.e., What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhist? I do not mean whether this question is a good question or not. What I mean is, can this question be answered? Should it be taken as a rhetorical question, not one to be answered but one asked to stimulate lively thought and discussion? When I was studying Multiculturalism, my Cultural Anthropologist was asked this question: "We have read and studied and discussed many case studies of culture, but all of these case studies have been carried out on small, somewhat isolated groups, such as the one of a tribe in Africa. Does such a case study of the American culture exist?" The professor responded, "The American culture is too large, too complex, too complicated, too fluid, and too heterogeneous for such a study to be done. Too many variables." As has been pointed out often in this thread, among Buddhists as among Christians, there exits many different sects or schools, some quite distinct from the rest. Just to sort out those differences would be an enormous task, not to mention the task of sorting out the differences between Christians and Buddhists as such.

What we are doing here is the only thing we can do, in light of such a monumental task: Share our own thoughts, insights, and experiences with the world of Buddha and the world of Christ. And that task is one for which this group is uniquely qualified. As the British say, let's do carry on!
steveb1
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by steveb1 »

papaya, thanks for the kind words about uan's and my posts. Yes, isn't it great to have a civilized forum for discussing differences between Buddhism and other religions / and their similarities, too, for that matter.

:)
papaya
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:10 am

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by papaya »

steveb1 wrote:Yes, isn't it great to have a civilized forum for discussing differences between Buddhism and other religions / and their similarities, too, for that matter.
It is great, yes!
History shows how often wars of violence and wars of words have been fought in the name of religion. And unfortunately the wars go on. When beliefs that are enormously varied, diverse, and even contradictory exits in a society, only civilized conversation can stem the animosities that arise among people. Good, civilized conversation about differences and similarities is the moral equivalence of war, for as long as people are curious about people and go about satisfying that curiosity in civilized ways, there is hope for a world at peace.

One time His Holiness the Dalai Lama noted that once compassion is present, all intellectual differences lose their power to divide people. I believe that civilized conversation thrives where compassion thrives. How often have I seen here, on this sight, a somewhat rude remark responded to with deep compassion, a compassion that so often opens within the person who made the remark the virtue of compassion.
steveb1
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by steveb1 »

Yeah, I guess it could be said that like its opposite, "Compassion is contagious". A compassionate, wise word or action from a pure heart can sometimes work wonders, especially if that heart is Bodhicitta-centered. Several examples from the Buddha's life support this idea, e.g., the brigand who made necklace of his victim's fingers and was brought to repentence and enlightenment by a few words from the Buddha...
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon May 26, 2014 5:53 am
Location: Texas

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by Mkoll »

steveb1 wrote:Several examples from the Buddha's life support this idea, e.g., the brigand who made necklace of his victim's fingers and was brought to repentence and enlightenment by a few words from the Buddha...
That was Venerable Angulimāla. You can read his story in Ven. Thanissaro's translation of the Angulimāla Sutta, the 86th from the Majjhima Nikāya, here.

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 21938
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by Grigoris »

And you can read/download the Mahayana version (The Angulimalya Sutra) here.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
papaya
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2014 7:10 am

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by papaya »

The Dalai Lama once said:
The purpose of all the major religious traditions is not to construct big temples on the outside, but to create temples of goodness and compassion inside, in our hearts.
Here's a true, personal story about how compassion overcomes intellectual reservations, and belief systems too:

In 1989, my identical twin brother died of AIDS in San Francisco. I had cared for him during the last nine months of his life. After his death, I joined a support group for family members grieving loved ones who had died of AIDS. In the group was a middle-aged couple from a small town in the Midwest whose son had recently died. One day they announced that they were relocating to San Francisco because they could no longer live in the community where they came from and be honest with themselves or their friends, neighbors, and fellow church members. They explained that everyone they knew believed that AIDS was God's punishment for the sin of homosexuality. They added that they too believed as such, but once their only son told them he had AIDS and was homosexual, they moved out to San Francisco to care for him. Soon they completely changed the way they thought and felt about AIDS being God's punishment for homosexuality. In fact, they changed how they felt about the religion they had practice since childhood. Compassion for their son had opened their eyes and their hearts, something no amount of arguments or preaching could ever have changed.
uan
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:58 am

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by uan »

steveb1 wrote:papaya, thanks for the kind words about uan's and my posts. Yes, isn't it great to have a civilized forum for discussing differences between Buddhism and other religions / and their similarities, too, for that matter.

:)
Kudos to the both of you. It's an intriguing question and it's great to have a discussion on it. It'd be better if it could be in Thailand on the beach! :cheers:
steveb1
Posts: 728
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:37 am

Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhis

Post by steveb1 »

... in Thailand on the beach ... sounds great! :)
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”