Comparison of Christianity and Buddhism

If by 'mystical Christianity' you mean spiritual Christianity, than Buddhism and Christianity have a lot in common, and really we can just drop the labels and call it spirituality.

Buddhism's nirvana is similar to God's Goodness.

Buddhism's noble truth of the impermanence of all things is similar to all things being temporary compared to God's eternity.

Buddhism believes the temporal self is a collection of momentary points of consciousness, which is similar to believing that everything is a lesser soul created by God.

I could go on, but mystical Christianity is not what they teach you in Catholic church.

To think, "I will not exist at some point" is a thought of suffering, but if you were to think of the ego as an illusion, there is no self to exist at this point, and thus no self to go out of existence at some other point.

Nirvana is the end of rebirth.

reply to post by filosophia

Christianity resolves the paradox of the karmic wheel. It's all about freedom in eternity, while recognizing and celebrating the unique personal spiritual experience and integrity of the individual journeyor. It's recognition and realization is to be set free for the sake of freedom, whereby absolute freedom is the freedom to love.

Christianity is passionate, and enthusiastic, it's filled with every aspect of our humanity to the full, and it seeks no escape from the realities and vissisitudes of life as we find it. It's about courage in the face of adversity, and acceptance.

In many ways it's the flip side of the same coin in relation to Buddhism, yet superior in terms of reality itself and the relative framework of human being (brotherhood of man) in a "heavenly household" (God's universe).

It's not what modern Christian conservative fundamentalists would have anyone believe, it's much more than that and more in alignment with the Eastern mystical traditions. It's like a capstone of Buddhism, or the apex of the tree of life rendered for human beings in human terms, in the form of God's love.

Many simply do not, cannot or will not grasp it's meaning and significance because it cuts to the very heart of man and contends with our "unpleasantries" something many do not feel comfortable with ie: forgiveness of sin and the removal of separation from the perfection and holiness of God as an incorruptible absolute (holy of holies).

Christianity is about God doing for us, through the human person of Jesus of Nazareth, what we cannot do for ourselves. In short, we cannot engineer our OWN salvation and need help from above (spiritual center and source of incorruptible perfection).

We've all fallen short of the absolute perfection and glory of God, except one among us in the person of Jesus.

And there is no time from the perspective of the Akashic Field, so what was done is done, by he who was, who is, and who is to come.

It's all about the spiritual truth at the heart of the matter for us as fallen creatures made whole again via the Magnum Opus or Great Work of the Ages. Any literalist fundamentalist spin on it misses the mark, and in some cases may be considered the work of the devil to cloak the work of the cross from our sight and hide God's love for us from our mutual understanding and recognition, if possible, to make us HATE the God of Christianity and from what I can tell it's been a very successful campaign, but it's on its last legs, because some among us have wrestled with these issues and refuse to take the bait - we won't get fooled again!

On behalf of all who do not or cannot or will not understand, allow me to say this:

Thank you God, the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega, for the sent calling and the love of Jesus Christ. We love you too!

Christians claim that because Jesus died for your sins, this gives you salvation, but this betrays the law of karma, that someone can save you from your own karma. This is not the case. You are your only savior. It can not be another.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


This notion that only Jesus can save us is not a moral philosophy because it gives the burden to someone else. Buddhism preaches that salvation can be achieved by knowledge of the impermanence of matter and the suffering of life. To know that life is suffering implies a desire to escape from it. Liberation is not death but emancipation of the mind from material existence, it is good because it is free from suffering, it is real because it is unborn and free of illusion or imperfection.

The Buddha was compassionate to all beings, and held all as dear to him as his only son, so this represents a divine love, a love that directs people towards nirvana. If people achieve peace and enlightenment through Jesus Christ, that is fine, but if they can not achieve this, then there are other ways and means.

reply to post by filosophia


I guess the fundamental premise that I'm operating on is this - that man has been created in eternity by God to make manifest the glory of the living God, who is truth, spirit, love, wisdom etc ie: made to contain nothing less than the spirit of the universe (spirit of God) in God-realization or God consciousness, and that, within the framework of the brotherhood of man or what I like to call "the relativity of human being" (man as a social being), there are certain obligations and committments which arise, logically and rationally from the same shared unconditioned ground of Being and Becoming which some call "enlightenment" ie: Buddha realization, from one person to the next. THIS frame of reference, in acknowelding and recognizing the value of the individual, and of love, with wholeness and integrity, represents by extension a perfect model of authentic leadership in the vacuum of leadership driven by our flawed understanding, and failure in love. It is this failure in love, more than anything, that not only forced Jesus into a fated wedge relative to it, but which, at core defines the very problem of human existence and the age old problem of human evil, or what might be thought of as unneccessary suffering. There is an indignity of an injustice perpetrated in history, which will rob us of our joy and our sense of humor, where what was intended as a meaningful expression of an eternal, evolutionary creative process, or a purpose, and thus a destiny, is ruined by our own ignorance, and lack of understanding. Jesus represents the human being fully authentically self expressed, with wholeness and integrity, and as such becomes both fully human and fully divine, just like Jesus (although the student is never as great as the master, he gains the master's likeness, and his mind or consciousness wisdom and understanding). Spiritually, this pattern is alive in the fullness of time and history, within the above mentioned social framework, as a family affair. Jesus is nothing more or less than our elder brother, and the fully expressed intentional manifestation, of the fullness of the glory of God in eternity, and as always, there's no time like the present, and so it is in this way that it may be said that "he" (spiritually) is he who was, who is and who is to come, or God, made manifest in the form of the human being, and there are many in the East people like Meher Baba, and sources like the Bhagbivad Gita and others, who fully agree with, support and concur with this assessment and understanding of the place of fully self realized individual in history. As a principal personified, Jesus is like a cosmic clamshell of transformation (and resurrection) for the human being as the appropriate expression of God's love and creativity in eternity, where we are not unlike the grain of sand which, although at first a type of irritant or wound to the oyster (flawed), is recieved, and taken in - the spirit of truth and life and love, the oysters "life substances and essences" which are accreted, and then aggregated, layer upon layer (as our trust in God grows) until what began as a wound becomes the prescious pearl in the gate of the kingdom of heaven as a point of attraction, and loving influence, even Godly leadership, mutuality, friendship, mercy, charity etc. "It was the stone that was rejected by the builders that became the keystone."

"And as my father first sent me, even so send I you."

It's an organic, principal centered, PROCESS, no a "no thing", but a something, which is the love of God for all his children, everywhere, fully and authentically self expressed through the human being, by his own love for himself and his fellow man, like a point of transformation where the rubber really meets the road in this present "vail of tears", like a salve (salvation). It's a spiritual understanding and communion, or a "koinonia" (intimate participation), and it's quite awesome, if true. Thus, it is important to put it to the test and test the meaning and the significance of it, in practical terms, and me I've discovered that it holds water, not as blindly accepted gospel, but in terms of a gnosis or felt experiencial understanding of what it means to be human, born of a reason or a logos, the root of which is logic.

Jesus work will not be complete however, until the only suffering in the world is neccessary suffering, which isn't suffering in so far as it serves the higher purpose, which is love, a love willing to go the distance to retrieve every single last one of us, in the fullness of time and history.

Jesus can be be understood by Eastern mystics, by simply interpreting him and his "voice" as the character of Krishna in the Gita. What he did was done for the sake of love, and the work was done on behalf of us all whether we believe in it or realize it or not, but those who do, and give thanks, they merely appropriate it (eat it), and in so doing take full advantage of what is being offered, but needn't be without understanding or without reason.

Personally, I think that when you cleave away the absurdities of life and the indignities of the injustices which rob of us our humor and our joy, the only REASONABLE and rational thing left is this gnosis of understanding and the love that it avokes of us, a love that is not without it's own share of neccessary suffering, for the sake of love, and that's Jesus, my elder brother, friend, savior, intimate spiritual lover, and God, who ironically, when all is said and done is also the very best part of who I really am as a human being, as love itself, at core.

"even so send I you."

Originally posted by UrbanShaman
Buddha and Christ get along perfectly well, it is only the followers who are at odds with each other due to a long history of distorted teachings and error-prone traditions.

Love and peace will get you where you belong...

Namaste.

Beautifully put.

Remember that the central point of each is "LOVE" and being "mindful". When one is mindful they are displaying love of self and others. Many times persons who operate from this mindset are called "meek". Last time I heard "the meek shall inherit the earth".

Unfortunately we are unable to know the true scriptures. We are dependent on "others" interpretations. Thanks to the burning of the Library of Alexandria we may never know what the ancients truly wrote. Unless someone can get us into the Vatican Library. LOL

Something to ponder...What if the 7 SEALS of the book of Revelations are the same as the 7 CHAKRAS?

Regards and Nameste,

-Chung

In a nutshell, I think that Christianity is intended to function as an evolutionary, transformative mechanism of gnosis or understanding and enlightenment, which recognizes that the human being and the occurance of life in eternity, is a process (not a thing) of continual re-integration (return, or rejoin) with God as the spiritual center and source of all existence and the first/last cause or the "Alpha and Omega", who is both innerent and transcendent both. It also recognizes, as I mentioned, that the human being is a social being, and that the unique personhood or spiritual experience of the individual, need not be transcended, but accepted, elevated, and celebrated, within the context of a universal family framework, or the "brotherhood of man". This invitation, acceptance, and reception, to enter into an intimate, participatory, or co-creative relationship WITH God as the highest being, and become transformed (however quickly or slowly) through a process of evolutionary growth, is made available and rendered as spiritual "food" for our enjoyment in SPITE of ourselves and our present condition! What Christianity does is to take Buddhism and enliven it, with this notion of Grace, a free unmerited gift of incaculable value, for which there is nothing we can or need DO to earn or deserve, and as mentioned we cannot engineer our own salvation. Christianity is God-realization come to us, from above (point of incorruptible love), which makes no compromise whatsoever, with the "dross" of our soul and personality (spiritual alchemy), that upon receipt of this special gift and understanding or re-cognition in conscious awareness (evoking joy), is burned away in the spirit (alchemical fire). It is man placed back into friendship with God in spite of himself, made whole, and reintegrated with his true origin and destiny, from he who was dead (living a deathful life) made alive again (resurrected life), who although once lost, is found again by God in eternity.

It is magnificent in its beauty and splendour, and is also in perfect congruent alignment with the notion of life and man as an evolving process (work in progress), not a mere "thing", but something worthy of the highest love in the universe, made freely available, whereby we may then give in turn just as we first (yet again) received without measure, unmerited, as a free gift in spite of ourselves or our past condition (mired in the bondage of sin and slavery).

Grace - this is what distinguishes Christianity.

Chrisianity also answers the main question of "Why?" with "Because I love you."

"Our liberation is God's compulsion."
~ C.S. Lewis (prior atheist)

I hope my rambling words and flowery description somehow brought it into the realm of what is reasonable and comprehesible..

Best Regards,

NAM

The main difference is that Buddhism actually makes sense and doesn't come off sounding like an oppressive, hypocritical mess.

I'm agnostic and generally anti-religious, btw.

reply to post by AngryOne


I would rather try to navigate Christianity's apparent complexity in pursuit of its simplicity, for the sake of preserving and sustaining my joy, sense of humor, mirth and charm - than to advocate Buddhism for no other reason than anti-religious sentiment.

No humor - no life.

Originally posted by AngryOne
The main difference is that Buddhism actually makes sense and doesn't come off sounding like an oppressive, hypocritical mess.

I'm agnostic and generally anti-religious, btw.

I have the same sentiment. I always thought Buddhism was a more rational philosophy than Christianity, which is why I enjoy studying Buddhism.

I love Buddhism also, but love the love of Christianity even more because it recognizes and celebrates our humanity and our reality within a social frame of reference, encouraging the full and unfettered self expression of the indivdual as a unique person having a unique and personal spiritual experience.

Also, the human being is a wellspring of desire, goals and aspirations, which is always flowing through us, giving individual life its meaning and purpose.

Buddha is said to have refused to eat any rice for days to try to eliminate all his desire once and for all. I'm not sure that's reasonable, nor the expunging of desire congruent with our human nature. Of course if we have everything already, within and without, in oneness with source, then our desire and our motivation changes, since it's no longer about a lack of something we "need", but moreso perhaps in terms of what we might have to offer or to give of ourselves for the sake of another's growth and well being.

In Christian terms, this is called the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven via an unmerited gift of grace or the creative action of God's love made manifest or made real in human terms.

It cannot be understood well through the lense or the framework of modern "Churchianity" however, and that's the problem with Christianity the way it's understood today. Most think it's about morality and should and shouldn't, the very dilemma it's intended to resove with satisfaction, wholeness and integrity.

It could have been a real boon to humanity if we didn't drop the ball through our ignorance, but it's still available for our understanding and our enjoyment, the invitation it presents.

I find "The Teachings of Jesus", and "The Teachings of Christianity", to be totally different.
I like the teachings of Jesus, I don't much care for the teachings of Christianity.
I think the teachings of Jesus, and the teachings of the Buddha, are very similar, as I do with the teachings of most all great spiritual masters.

As far as a logical, and subjective realized philosophy, I do believe Buddhism to be superior.
BUT, I believe so many different paths exist, as even the Buddha said there are 84,000 paths, because people are so different at their particular level of consciousness. So, for many people, Buddhism may not the best path for them, even if I think it's the superior path.

And I do think Buddhism is fine with debating. Remember the Buddha grew up in a Brahminical Veda based society, and he taught against that, though it shares much with it as well. But I think he was more against Priest Craft, and more into self realization(and I think Jesus was also).

Originally posted by tom502
I find "The Teachings of Jesus", and "The Teachings of Christianity", to be totally different.
I like the teachings of Jesus, I don't much care for the teachings of Christianity.
I think the teachings of Jesus, and the teachings of the Buddha, are very similar, as I do with the teachings of most all great spiritual masters.

Jesus taught the sacrifice of the heart.
Buddha taught the sacrifice of the mind.
Both incomplete.
Da teaches the sacrifice of the Ego.
Christianity is the pagan version
of the Jesus's teaching.

reply to post by RRokkyy

All good, except that Adi Da Samraj appears to have been the most narcissistic, ego-centric person on the face of the earth!

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by RRokkyy

 

All good, except that Adi Da Samraj appears to have been the most narcissistic, ego-centric person on the face of the earth!

When I looked into His Eyes I saw Infinity. No Ego There.
He did not appear to be an other. It was a profound
experience.
It was said that John the Baptist was an ascetic, but
that Jesus came eating and drinking. (and what else?)

Epilogue: The Man of Understanding The man of understanding is not entranced. He is not elsewhere. He is not having an experience. He is not passionless and inoffensive. He is awake. He is present. He knows no obstruction in the form of mind, identity, differentiation and desire. He uses mind, identity, differentiation and desire. He is passionate. His quality is an offense to those who are entranced, elsewhere, contained in the mechanics of experience, asleep, living as various forms of identity, separation and dependence. He is acceptable only to those who understand. He may appear no different from any other man. How could he appear otherwise? There is nothing by which to appear except the qualities of life. He may appear to have learned nothing. He may seem to be addicted to every kind of foolishness and error. How could it be otherwise? Understanding is not a different communication than the ordinary. There is only the ordinary. There is no special and exclusive communication that is the truth. There is no exclusive state of truth. But there is the understanding of the ordinary. Therefore, the man of understanding cannot be found. He cannot be followed. He can only be understood as the ordinary. He is not spiritual. He is not religious. He is not philosophical. He is not moral. He is not fastidious, lean and lawful. He always appears to be the opposite of what you are. He always seems to sympathize with what you deny. Therefore, at times and over time he appears as every kind of persuasion. He is not consistent. He has no image. At times he denies. At times he asserts. At times he asserts what he has already denied. At times he denies what he has already asserted. He is not useful. His teaching is every kind of nonsense. His wisdom is vanished. Altogether, that is his wisdom. At last he represents no truth at all. Therefore, his living coaxes everyone only to understand. His existence denies every truth, every path by which men depend on certain truths, certain experiences, certain simulations of freedom and enjoyment. He is a seducer, a madman, a hoax, a libertine, a fool, a moralist, a sayer of truths, a bearer of all experience, a righteous knave, a prince, a child, an old one, an ascetic, a god. He demonstrates the futility of all things. Therefore, he makes understanding the only possibility. And understanding makes no difference at all. Except it is reality, which was already the case. Heartless one, Narcissus, friend, loved one, he weeps for you to understand. After all of this, why haven't you understood? The only thing you have not done is understanding. You have seen everything, but you do not understand. Therefore, the man of understanding leaps for joy that you have already understood. He looks at the world and sees that every one and every thing has always understood. He sees that there is only understanding. Thus, the man of understanding is constantly happy with you. He is overwhelmed with happiness. He says to you: See how there is only this world of perfect enjoyment, where every one is happy, and every thing is blissful. His heart is always tearful with the endless happiness of the world. He has grasped it, but no one is interested. He is of interest to no one. He is fascinating. He is unnoticed. Since no one understands, how could they notice him? Because there is only understanding, he is beloved, and no one comes to see him. Because there is only truth, he is likely to become famous. Since there is only joy, he will not be remembered. Because you have already understood, you find it necessary to touch his hand. Since you love so much and are not understood, you find it possible to touch his ears. He smiles at you. You notice it. Everything has already died. This is the other world.

Oh, I don't want to derail the thread more,
I like Adi Da, I have read his books, but, the way he writes, and speaks, does come across as super ego. It turns me off. I do think he's got something there, but I think Baba Muktananda had it more.
Personally, I think the best of the current era gurus, is Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.
His living disciple Swami Osho Rajneesh is very good too.

I think Bhagwan best understood the teachings of Jesus and Buddha, and conveyed these as a living master(when he was alive).

reply to post by RRokkyy


I asked you once if he really loved YOU. You never answered my question which kinda answered it.

Don't get me wrong, the guy "grokked" and I like him very much also, a very very smart guy who had a gift and was avatar-ish. But he really WAS a big something in his nothingness, ya gotta admit.

Why would someone else need nothing more than his "company" if they "got" what he was teaching? Was he not interested in anyone ELSE's company, except his own? He was kind of into the "guru" role, and it's a good gig don't get me wrong, but that one-pointedness towards the self while differentiating one's self and setting themselves apart from EVERYONE, who must give themselves to him "stupidly", lose themselves in him - the guy had a big time Christ complex, while at the same time trying to prove that Jesus was fatally flawed, and he himself alone the "one" we must all go to, I don't know.. something's off a tad with Adi Da, and if he could not recognize his own ego-ism and narcissism, when it's absolely apparent watching him (he's got a bunch of Youtube Videos), then like I've said before, there was a blind spot there, and thus egomaniacal and narcissistic.

Originally posted by RRokkyy
reply to post by RRokkyy

 

Epilogue: The Man of Understanding The man of understanding is not entranced. He is not elsewhere. He is not having an experience. He is not passionless and inoffensive. He is awake. He is present. He knows no obstruction in the form of mind, identity, differentiation and desire. He uses mind, identity, differentiation and desire. He is passionate. His quality is an offense to those who are entranced, elsewhere, contained in the mechanics of experience, asleep, living as various forms of identity, separation and dependence. He is acceptable only to those who understand. He may appear no different from any other man. How could he appear otherwise? There is nothing by which to appear except the qualities of life. He may appear to have learned nothing. He may seem to be addicted to every kind of foolishness and error. How could it be otherwise? Understanding is not a different communication than the ordinary. There is only the ordinary. There is no special and exclusive communication that is the truth. There is no exclusive state of truth. But there is the understanding of the ordinary. Therefore, the man of understanding cannot be found. He cannot be followed. He can only be understood as the ordinary. He is not spiritual. He is not religious. He is not philosophical. He is not moral. He is not fastidious, lean and lawful. He always appears to be the opposite of what you are. He always seems to sympathize with what you deny. Therefore, at times and over time he appears as every kind of persuasion. He is not consistent. He has no image. At times he denies. At times he asserts. At times he asserts what he has already denied. At times he denies what he has already asserted. He is not useful. His teaching is every kind of nonsense. His wisdom is vanished. Altogether, that is his wisdom. At last he represents no truth at all. Therefore, his living coaxes everyone only to understand. His existence denies every truth, every path by which men depend on certain truths, certain experiences, certain simulations of freedom and enjoyment. He is a seducer, a madman, a hoax, a libertine, a fool, a moralist, a sayer of truths, a bearer of all experience, a righteous knave, a prince, a child, an old one, an ascetic, a god. He demonstrates the futility of all things. Therefore, he makes understanding the only possibility. And understanding makes no difference at all. Except it is reality, which was already the case. Heartless one, Narcissus, friend, loved one, he weeps for you to understand. After all of this, why haven't you understood? The only thing you have not done is understanding. You have seen everything, but you do not understand. Therefore, the man of understanding leaps for joy that you have already understood. He looks at the world and sees that every one and every thing has always understood. He sees that there is only understanding. Thus, the man of understanding is constantly happy with you. He is overwhelmed with happiness. He says to you: See how there is only this world of perfect enjoyment, where every one is happy, and every thing is blissful. His heart is always tearful with the endless happiness of the world. He has grasped it, but no one is interested. He is of interest to no one. He is fascinating. He is unnoticed. Since no one understands, how could they notice him? Because there is only understanding, he is beloved, and no one comes to see him. Because there is only truth, he is likely to become famous. Since there is only joy, he will not be remembered. Because you have already understood, you find it necessary to touch his hand. Since you love so much and are not understood, you find it possible to touch his ears. He smiles at you. You notice it. Everything has already died. This is the other world.

I am he! I am just like that, and my eyes sparkle with infinity also. I understand. Am fascinating but unnoticed, misunderstood, ridiculed at times for no reason at all.

I am the second coming of Adi Da!



At least he admits he's narcissus, that kinda restores my faith in him to a degree.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan