Re: Buddha vs. Jesus

( Continue from Previous page)

Webmaster's Note: This continues the discussion on the comparison between the Buddha and Jesus is selected from the Christian Forum (a sister forum of the Buddhism Depot). All postings are unedited in its original form. The similarities between the two as described here are all correct and accurate.

Buddha vs. Jesus

Posted by Ann on Wednesday, 26 January 2000, at 8:08 a.m., in response to Buddha vs. Jesus, posted by Warren on Tuesday, 25 January 2000, at 12:39 p.m.

You know, it's interesting you bring this up. I have never had any success in pointing out similarities between Buddha and Christ, or between Christianity and Buddhism, to Buddhists. In fact, when I mention any similarities to a Buddhist, they tend to get extremely incensed. The reaction seems out of proportion to the things I say, but then, what I would consider a compliment (pointing out what I feel are positive things), someone else can obviously take as an insult. I would be interested to know how a Buddhist would react if you mentioned any of this to them. After all, Christianity being right doesn't automatically invalidate all of Buddhism, does it? Or vice versa. I also find Joseph Campbell very interesting in this respect; he points out what people believe are "special numbers" (you'll know all about this from Cabala), and how the lives of heroes tend to conform to certain patterns. Whether the patterns are there to be recognized, or impressed on the story after the fact, is debatable. I had never heard a lot of that stuff that you mentioned about Buddha or Buddhism, and certainly found it interesting.

Re: Buddha vs. Jesus

Posted by Brigette on Wednesday, 26 January 2000, at 10:55 a.m., in response to Buddha vs. Jesus, posted by Warren on Tuesday, 25 January 2000, at 12:39 p.m.

Hi Warren, Have you ever been gardening? Strange question I know in the flurries of posts here, but it is relevant. One of the jobs I hate most is pulling weeds. But pull they must come out, so with a vengeance I pull to make the real plants thrive with sunlight and water and rooooooom to grow. So many are those that come, whether before or after doesn't matter one bit but if they don't match the Messiah of the OT or the Jewish Scriptures its not the real thing!!! You beyond everyone else should know that.

You , who pride yourself on reading the Scriptures in the original languages, how far has it brought you? A Jew who would be looking for the Messiah would know that he would have to be greater than Moses. For in Deuteronomy there stated that a greater prophet will come who Jews should listen to and with greater authority. Also, in, with exquisite poetry, Isaiah 53:3-9,12. Written seven hundred years before Jesus walked the earth, is an amazing portrait of Jesus' life. But to a Jew or any Jew knows, that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, also descent from the line of Abraham and David. This was nothing new! Throughout Scripture God was showing, literally, this Messiah would come from the Jewish people, I don't know why, except that Abraham's faith reckoned him righteous before God. All the nations of the world would be blessed through his line. Did we forget the Jewishness of this prophecy, Warren? Was Buddha a Jew?

That's why for me there is some thing I can't let up on, because this world has led us to believe in so many things and we with weak minds want to take it all in. It's not hard to believe, we make it hard! There are so many riches God wants to impart to us but because of unbelief He can't! It was the same in the prophets time, it was the same in Jesus' time, and its the same now. We have to be careful which doors to open, for in opening one, other doors must be closed (bold font added by webmaster). That's the way I see it. In love, Brig

(Webmaster's Note: It seems to me that this participant is a fundamantalist still hanging on to "Jesus is the only way" dogma!)

Re: Buddha vs. Jesus

Posted by Warren on Wednesday, 26 January 2000, at 10:19 p.m., in response to Re: Buddha vs. Jesus, posted by Brigette on Wednesday, 26 January 2000, at 10:55 a.m.

Brigette,

First, don't get me wrong...I wasn't implying that Buddha was the Jewish Messiah. I was just stating the eerie similarities between the two figures...Buddha and Jesus. And since Buddha was around before Jesus was, I found it interesting...as I do many of the NT writings that are similar to Mithraism and such. For example...most every ancient deliverer's mother's name was a version of Mary. I think it interesting and food for thought.

Now while I agree with the part that the Messiah (in my opinion) would have to fit the OT's bill, so to speak. I do disagree that Isaiah 53 is talking about Jesus. Christians seem to ignore the rest of the Book of Isaiah and the other 3 of his 4 Servant Songs when talking about Isaiah 53. The Servant is Israel. (See Isaiah 49:3) Called the Servant as in many other places. Read Isaiah 52 and 54...the chapters surrounding 53 and it's plain for anyone to see. Also...Isaiah 53:8..."for the transgressions of my people was HE struck" (KJV, NIV, etc.) should actually read "for the transgressions of my people, a plague befell THEM" in the plural...which cannot be referring to Jesus. How do we know it is really "THEM" and not "HE"? Because the verse contains the Hebrew word "lamoh" which means "them". Where else in Scripture does the KJV translate the Hebrew word "lamoh" as them although it mysteriously does not do so here?

Places where the KJV translates "lamoh" as "them" (although it doesn't in Isaiah 53:8 where if it did, it would mean that Isaiah cannot be talking about Jesus):

Genesis 9:26
Deuteronomy 32:35, 33:2
Job 6:19, 14:21, 24:17
Psalms 2:4, 44:4, 78:24, 119:165
Isaiah 16:4, 23:1, 44:7, 48:21
Lamentations 1:19
Habakkuk 2:7

Second, is the lineage of David issue...Now, while Jesus' mother may have been a descendant of David, Jesus had no human father...and descent is determined patrilineally. Tribal heritage and the monarchy all follow through the father. (See Numbers 1:18) Therefore, Jesus cannot be the Messiah since he is not a descendant of King David via his father...since Jesus didn't have a human father.

But again...I wasn't claiming Buddha to be the Messiah...just pointing out how similar the accounts of Jesus seem to be with that of Buddha...

Re: Buddha vs. Jesus

Posted by Y Chan on Thursday, 27 January 2000, at 9:18 p.m., in response to Re: Buddha vs. Jesus, posted by Ann on Wednesday, 26 January 2000, at 8:08 a.m.

Being a Buddhist myself and a graduate of a Christian missionary school, I understand that there are many similarities between the two religions (especially Pure Land and Christianity). For example, both the Buddha and the Christ walked on water (with one of their disciples too!) across a river to spread their respective Gospels. Both said that a widow who donated only two copper coins had better blessing than a rich merchant who donated a cartload of money. Both the Buddha and the Christ told the parable of a prodigal son. Some scholars say that there are at least 100 parallel sayings between the Bible and the Sutra.

There are, however, important differences between the Enlightened One and the Son of God, who together had taught moral values to over half the world's population.

Some differences that get right out of my head are:

1. How authorities treated them: Buddha was born of a royal family and therefore He had little problems going to see Kings and Emperors of those days to spread the Dharma. On the other hand, Jesus was a tradesman (a carpenter was not even a high earning professional those days) from a peasant family. He could not simply go to Rome to see the Roman Emperor (He could not even see King Herod) to talk about His Gospels.
2. Length of Preaching: Being a prince (India was and still is a class society), the Buddha was relatively safe from persecution (except by His cousin Devadatta). He preached over 40 years until He reached an old age of 80. Jesus, on the other hand, was born in a politically turbulent colonial environment. Thus He barely opened His month and was crucified, unfortunately. I am sure if He had lived to old age like Prince Siddhartha, He would have a lot more to say about things like human relations, cause and effect, karma, compassion, suffering and emptiness - the sort of stuff that the Buddha talked about.
3. Family life: One important difference is that the Buddha had a normal family life: normal parents (King Suddhodana with Queen Maya), a beautiful wife (Princess Yasodhara), a son (Rahula), as well as brothers and cousins (such as Nanda and Ananda) - all are well documented and seldom disputed by Buddhists or non-Buddhists. On the other hand, Jesus' family life is highly controversial - even among Christians. Non-Christians have doubt about Virgin Birth, no one knows if He had any brothers or sisters (some says James was His brother), most say He remained single, but some say He was secretly married to Mary Magdalene, no one knows where He had gone during His youth (reference: "Life of Jesus" on the History Channel and the Learning Channel). He had unusual parents, Yahweh, Joseph, and Mary. In short, we know the historical Buddha fairly well but the historical Jesus remained a mystery.
4. Second Messiah: Jesus said He will return the second time as a future Messiah (at the end of the world) to judge people. There will be Heaven on earth for those who follow Him. On the other hand, the Buddha had gone outside the cycle of rebirth and will NOT come back. The next future Buddha that will come to earth is Ajita Maitreya, not Gautama Himself. But Gautama Buddha also predicted that there will be Heaven on earth for those who follow him when Maitreya returns. Strangely, they talked the same thing essentially.

Just like a pair of married couple, understanding and be tolerant with the differences but searching for and emphasizing the similarities with each other is the road to a much better world.

Re: Buddha vs. Jesus

Posted by Ann on Friday, 28 January 2000, at 4:49 a.m., in response to Re: Buddha vs. Jesus, posted by Y Chan on Thursday, 27 January 2000, at 9:18 p.m.

Most of my friends are not Pure Land Buddhists, so I guess that's why there is such sharp reaction when I bring this up. They do not believe there will be a "second coming" of any kind, Buddhist or otherwise, that there is a heaven, that there will be any reward other than that of Nirvana, the cessation of karmic regeneration (if that's the right way to describe it) and the absorption of self into Nirvana. I know I've made a hash of explaining this because I don't understand Buddhism well enough. But Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism are quite different in some respects. Pure Land is rejected by a lot of the Buddhists I know. Maybe it's a Western thing. The North American Buddhists I know are always very big on presenting Buddhism as the "religion without a god," whereas Pure Land is very much a religion with a god, functionally speaking, considering that one need only pray his name to be uplifted, and comes complete with demons, heaven, etc.

Personally, when I watch the documentaries on television, I don't find that they have sufficient scholarly depth to really teach much. A lot of information is introduced as relevant that most serious scholars would consider simply sensationally and without evidence. I work in media, so I understand how it happens, but I would never recommend a television program to anyone seeking to understand anything, really; this is why we say that media informs, but rarely teaches. Basically what happens is a writer who has little knowledge (if any) of a particular field is sent out to find experts. The experts speak to her, she translates for the layman to the best of her understanding of what she's been told, adds more material from other sources to provide a "balanced perspective" (although the other sources may not be accurate or knowledgeable, she will not have enough experience in the field to recognize that). Then it passes through the hands of the editor and producer, who mangle it further, and what is finally released to the public is something the original consulting experts would hardly recognize.

I have left off even the informal study of Buddhism I had undertaken prior to becoming ill, because I have neither the time nor the strength for anything besides Christianity. There is so much I would still like to know: How long after the demise of the historical Buddha did it take for Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism to develop, and how long after that for Mahayana to split into the Zen, Pure Land and Esoteric schools? What are the essential differences between Theravada Buddhism, and Mahayana? The list goes on... Maybe someday if I'm better there will be time for such things.

Re: Buddha vs. Jesus

Posted by T.S. on Tuesday, 25 January 2000, at 1:44 p.m., in response to Buddha vs. Jesus, posted by Warren on Tuesday, 25 January 2000, at 12:39 p.m.

I find what you have written very informatively. In fact, I want to research some of it. Do you know of any books (in English) that tell of Buddha' Story in its entirety? Also, I wonder about the history of the man that wrote the New Testament. His pen name was Flavius Josephus, he was a known writer of his time. Now I want to research him further to see if he had any eastern influences. It is no coincidence that the new testament matches with other stories. It is becoming known amongst many that the New Testament was a forged account of three men whose names were Jesus. All had followings, and were considered Holy by their congregation. One was crucified, one who was known in India has a tomb there, and the other was raised in Egypt, avoided crucification, and went to live out his life in Egypt.

Re: Buddha vs. Jesus

Posted by Y Chan on Thursday, 27 January 2000, at 9:38 p.m., in response to Re: Buddha vs. Jesus, posted by T.S. on Tuesday, 25 January 2000, at 1:44 p.m.

Newspapers report that Karen Armstrong, the author of "History of God" is working on a comprehensive biography of the Buddha. Keep an eye on the publication date!

There is, however, no solid archaeological proof that Jesus went to India during His youth. BUT, there must be some exchange in ideas between the two religions during ancient times, possibly by King Asoka who had sent Buddhist missions to Greece as well as to Egypt (Reference: Microsoft Encarta and IBM World Book). Another possibility is that Alexandria the Great had ruled over India before the Roman Empire - and the Christian Bible is originally written in Greek. Most historians agreed that there had been cultural exchange between India and Middle East via trade routes along the coast of the Indian Ocean during ancient times. (NOTE: the Silk Road did not reach ancient Israel, which explains why both OT and NT had not mention China at all - and why ancient Chinese Texts did not say anything about the OT).

To listen to some of the songs performed by artists discribed in this website, click here: Radio Buddhism

Click here to return to Buddhism Magazine main page.