Comparison of Christianity and Buddhism

I will say that is it comes down to worldview; you feel that christianity is inferior because you are buddhist and I feel christianity is superior. if you look at it jesus did not have a mentor either being he was God or if you argue it a human mentor.

but since christianity and buddhism a not related in any real sense it is like comparing apples and oranges.

It's true, Jesus didn't have a mentor, which is why it is sad that so many Christians feel as if they can not enter heaven without the aid of Jesus.

reply to post by filosophia


It sounds like you're just asserting based on some information you probably got from some new age groups.

I don't see many ties between christianity and buddhism, not without interpretation.

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


if you don't think I am reporting the facts then stick to your own theory where you wait around for a divine guru to grant enlightenment upon you.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by filosophia

 

It sounds like you're just asserting based on some information you probably got from some new age groups.

I don't see many ties between christianity and buddhism, not without interpretation.

probably because you do not have the insight to have any comprehension as to what I am talking about. I never meant to point out any ties between the two, only that Buddhism is superior to Christianity.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by filosophia]

I agree with this statement, the "Four Noble Truths" are the greatest truths of all, making them 'noble', but this does not mean it is Buddhist-like to 'claim' or 'promote' superiority over others. It is to be known, not promoted. That is a Christian fundamentalist thing to do.

a contradiction: four noble truths are the highest, but it is not buddhist like to claim superiority over others. So what are you comparing these highest noble truths to? Surely something that is inferior to it?

IMHO this topic is useless....I am terrible sorry for saying this.
You just choose a bunch of Cristian belives/laws, and compare them with the Bhuddist philosofy...what is the same as trying to make a comparizon between water and oil...they never will mix or will be related, so why try to compare them?

Unless this is kinda of a game..hummm...let's compare day and night:

- Night is dark.
- Day is light.
- Night is sleep.
- Day is awake.
- And so on and so on...

Can be fun, but this is uterly useless...lol


[edit on 3/7/10 by Umbra Sideralis]

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

 

if you don't think I am reporting the facts then stick to your own theory where you wait around for a divine guru to grant enlightenment upon you.

How do you speak for me and tell me my theory is that I will "wait around for a divine guru to grant enlightenment" upon me? LOL. I don't even know how or why you came to that conclusion. Are you saying YOU are that enlightened one whom I am suppose to follow?

Wow, this just got even more interesting. You are obviously an intelligent person, but your ego is clouding up your message and understanding of Buddhism. Did you read that story I posted? It may help.

reply to post by filosophia


My only point is that you are defining "Buddhism" and "Christianity" very narrowly in making your comparison. You started off by making the sweeping claim that "Buddhism is superior to Christianity." Within this thread I have given numerous examples and/or links to both devotional forms of Buddhism and mystical strains of Christianity. You are free to accept or reject both/either, but you cannot make sweeping claims about the two religions based on rejection of devotionalism and embrace of interior unitive mysticism, because both religions contain both devotional and unitive schoos and strains of religious thought. It is a highly superficial reading of both religions to identify Buddhism exclusively with unitive mysticism and Christianity solely with doctrinal devotionalism.

To use a metaphor, comparing the two the way you are attempting is a bit like comparing "City A" and "City B" using only a photo of a slum from "City A" and and a castle from "City B" without acknowledging that both cities contain both slums and castles.

Originally posted by Umbra Sideralis
IMHO this topic is useless....I am terrible sorry for saying this.
You just choose a bunch of Cristian belives/laws, and compare them with the Bhuddist philosofy...what is the same as trying to make a comparizon between water and oil...they never will mix or will be related, so why try to compare them?

Unless this is kinda of a game..hummm...let's compare day and night:

- Night is dark.
- Day is light.
- Night is sleep.
- Day is awake.
- And so on and so on...

Can be fun, but this is uterly useless...lol

[edit on 3/7/10 by Umbra Sideralis]

considering that many people are indoctrinated into thinking that Christianity is the one true religion, and when they stumble upon Buddhism they realize there is actually a religion/philosophy that has some truth and logic to it, I find it perfectly acceptable to compare these two. Ever hear of a comparative religion study? After all, how else can you find out which religion is the best without comparing them? Without comparison and discrimination, you have no basis for knowledge.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

 

if you don't think I am reporting the facts then stick to your own theory where you wait around for a divine guru to grant enlightenment upon you.

How do you speak for me and tell me my theory is that I will "wait around for a divine guru to grant enlightenment" upon me? LOL.

I don't even know how or why you came to that conclusion.

Are you saying YOU are that enlightened one whom I am suppose to follow?

Wow, this just got even more interesting. You are obviously an intelligent person, but your ego is clouding up your message and understanding of Buddhism. Did you read that story I posted? It may help.

sorry, I had you confused with the other poster that mentioned the Buddhist theory of needing a bodhisattva in order to achieve enlightenment. However, with regards to my 'beliefs' they are beliefs because of logic and personal experience, and not speculation or opinion. I am not asking you to be my follower, you are projecting that notion onto me. I only care for the truth, so my ego is eliminated rather than clouding my judgment.

Originally posted by silent thunder
reply to post by filosophia

 

My only point is that you are defining "Buddhism" and "Christianity" very narrowly in making your comparison. You started off by making the sweeping claim that "Buddhism is superior to Christianity." Within this thread I have given numerous examples and/or links to both devotional forms of Buddhism and mystical strains of Christianity. You are free to accept or reject both/either, but you cannot make sweeping claims about the two religions based on rejection of devotionalism and embrace of interior unitive mysticism, because both religions contain both devotional and unitive schoos and strains of religious thought. It is a highly superficial reading of both religions to identify Buddhism exclusively with unitive mysticism and Christianity solely with doctrinal devotionalism.

To use a metaphor, comparing the two the way you are attempting is a bit like comparing "City A" and "City B" using only a photo of a slum from "City A" and and a castle from "City B" without acknowledging that both cities contain both slums and castles.

Fine, prove how Christianity is superior to Buddhism. You may not accept my statements as to why Buddhism is superior to Christianity but at the very least you can attempt to do the same. So, why should someone consider Christianity to have a superior philosophy than Buddhism? I will be interested to hear this.

reply to post by filosophia


because Jesus said 'I am the way the truth and the life' or 'if anyone does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me'. this is the reason I am under such an assumption. clearly Jesus wanted people to follow him; I don't know what the Buddha said on this but I believe Jesus was fairly clear.

reply to post by filosophia


Ok, well since that was not intended for me, you can disregard my response. Again, I do agree with you on many points, just not necessarily how your presenting them, but nevertheless I enjoyed our discussion.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by silent thunder
reply to post by filosophia

 

My only point is that you are defining "Buddhism" and "Christianity" very narrowly in making your comparison. You started off by making the sweeping claim that "Buddhism is superior to Christianity." Within this thread I have given numerous examples and/or links to both devotional forms of Buddhism and mystical strains of Christianity. You are free to accept or reject both/either, but you cannot make sweeping claims about the two religions based on rejection of devotionalism and embrace of interior unitive mysticism, because both religions contain both devotional and unitive schoos and strains of religious thought. It is a highly superficial reading of both religions to identify Buddhism exclusively with unitive mysticism and Christianity solely with doctrinal devotionalism.

To use a metaphor, comparing the two the way you are attempting is a bit like comparing "City A" and "City B" using only a photo of a slum from "City A" and and a castle from "City B" without acknowledging that both cities contain both slums and castles.

Fine, prove how Christianity is superior to Buddhism. You may not accept my statements as to why Buddhism is superior to Christianity but at the very least you can attempt to do the same. So, why should someone consider Christianity to have a superior philosophy than Buddhism? I will be interested to hear this.

My goodness, what binary thinking for a self-proclaimed Buddhist!

Nowhere -- and I mean NOWHWERE -- did I claim "Christianity is superior to Buddhism," nor would I ever attempt to make that claim.

Why can't one just honor the beneficial and profound aspects of both traditions without having to make any kind of comparison whatsoever?

reply to post by silent thunder


Without comparison, there can be no real knowledge. Discrimination is the root of knowledge, you can not know what is good if you do not know what is evil, you can not know what is authentically real if you do not know what is momentarily real, and you can not appreciate the profound depth of a philosophy like Buddhism if you can not compare it with other views and see how it is superior to them. How is it that you know anything? By comparison and contrasting it with other things. Try and think of an object, like fire, and try to know it only based on its own means, you could not say it is hot, because that would imply you know what cold is, you can not say it is light, because you would have to know what heavy is. How can you know the Buddha's enlightenment unless you understand also what is not enlightenment? Especially for the soul, since it is immaterial, the only way to know the soul or the highest nirvana is through negation, in which you compare it to all other things and reject that which is not the highest. That is the only way to achieve enlightenment, by subtracting in your mind all that impermanent and transitory. The same can be done with any religion, if they claim something that is not true, such as someone needs Jesus in order to be saved, then a Buddhist or a Truth seeker would most surely reject it if he finds it to be based on false or illogical grounds. So, rather than appreciating both cultures, I find it more practical to understand which one is more superior. Why do you have such a problem with superiority? Buddhism is not about equality for all, a happy realm where all things are peaceful with each other. That goes against karma, it goes against the natural animal order, and it goes against human nature. The only realm which is 100 percent pure peace is nirvana, and you can't have nirvana except in a purified mind, one free of ignorance and false views, and so if you have Christian ideologies or any other type of religious assumptions in mind, you do not have a completely pure mind. Just as if you inserted opinions into a scientific text book and then attempted to explain it by saying that since any opinion is worthy of appreciation, we might as well cherish all opinions as if they were the truth. Any truth seeker would reject such a notion.

As for a Christian sect that engages in meditation, such as the Gnostics, the only true gnostic Christian philosophy is one where the individual identifies him or herself with God, because if God created all things, then all things are of the nature of God. To assume otherwise would be false and contrary to the ideals of a religion based on a creator God. Or if the gnostic philosophy is about realizing the absolute power of the universe, and becoming "one with everything" it is not directed at a God-being but rather the immortal principle of nature, and so either way, the individual should identify their true nature as this power, clearly this is very far off of mainstream Christianity. And for the record, the gnostic Christians are very rare compared with doctrinal Christians. And if you hold a view similar to the gnostic Christians, you would identify your true nature as that which is the most supreme, so you would have to have in your mind an idea of a God higher than any other God. Again, the concept of superiority is crucial with such a philosophy. Brahman is the absolute reality, so can Brahmanism be anything other than Absolut-ism? I think not.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by filosophia]

reply to post by filosophia


Well, if you are going to make comparisons at least be more specific. You seem to have rejectected most if not all of Mahayana and Vajayana Buddhism by dismissing them (incorrectly, as it happns) as "Guru-based." You also charachterize Chrisitianity rather woodenly using only the most extreme and fundamentalist notions, and seemingly ignoring the long unitive mystical traditions within that religion. So, suddenly your argument becomes not "Buddhism is superior to Christianity," but rather: "Some specific forms of Buddhism, which I personally happen to value, are superior to a very narrowly defined Christianity."

Not the same thing at all. You write, "discrimination is the root of knowledge." If you truly believe this, you will learn to discriminate between superficial and limited definitions, and more accurate and wide-ranging understandings of the histories of both religions.

Originally posted by silent thunder
reply to post by filosophia

 

Well, if you are going to make comparisons at least be more specific. You seem to have rejectected most if not all of Mahayana and Vajayana Buddhism by dismissing them (incorrectly, as it happns) as "Guru-based." You also charachterize Chrisitianity rather woodenly using only the most extreme and fundamentalist notions, and seemingly ignoring the long unitive mystical traditions within that religion. So, suddenly your argument becomes not "Buddhism is superior to Christianity," but rather: "Some specific forms of Buddhism, which I personally happen to value, are superior to a very narrowly defined Christianity."

Not the same thing at all. You write, "discrimination is the root of knowledge." If you truly believe this, you will learn to discriminate between superficial and limited definitions, and more accurate and wide-ranging understandings of the histories of both religions.

Explain this long unitive mystical tradition of Christianity. The last I checked, this means the gnostics, which were mostly killed through religious persecutions. Can you direct me to a modern day group of Christians that is not doctrinal based? If you can, I probably will agree with most of what they have to say. Either way, if they preach about God, I'll have to continue to declare that Original Buddhism, based on the Nikayas and extensively researched at (www.attan.com) is the true and authentic Buddhism, not just a sect of Buddhism I happen to like.

Can you prove that any of the statements I made about Christianity in my first post of this thread are not in accordance with mainstream Christianity? I will admit that my Buddhism is not 'modern' Buddhism, i.e. no-soul Buddhism, but I do not consider that type of Buddhism to be real Buddhism, as I do not believe that the Buddha was a nihilist, nor do the scriptures support this position.



[edit on 3-7-2010 by filosophia]

since I am not a fan of being ignored or maybe I am not as intellectually stimulating as other posters, Have a productive thread.

Originally posted by ApacheChief
since I am not a fan of being ignored or maybe I am not as intellectually stimulating as other posters, Have a productive thread.

you mentioned that Jesus says he is the way, the truth, the light, which is why Christians follow him. The Buddha said "“The purification of one’s own mind/will (citta); this is the Doctrine of the Buddha” [Digha Nikaya 2.49]

Purifying one's own mind, as opposed to having it done for you through Jesus Christ. That is a big difference between Christianity and Buddhism.

Originally posted by filosophia

Explain this long unitive mystical tradition of Christianity. The last I checked, this means the gnostics, which were mostly killed through religious persecutions.

If you truly are interested in mystical Christianity, consider googling the following for starters, in addition to the Gnostics:

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
The Cloud of Unknowing
St. John of the Cross
Meister Eckhart
John of Ruysbroeck
Apophatic theology
The "desert fathers"
Quietism
Eastern Orthodox mysticism (specifically Hesychasm)

Enjoy.