Buddha and Christ - Convergent or Divergent?

[godnotgod]

When I got my BA in Religious Studies I was fortunate to be taught about Buddhism and Asian Religions from professors who were themselves Buddhists. One of them would bring his small dog to work with him - and he loved to invite students into his office for tea, haha. While I can't say I agree with the philosophy, those were some of my favorite classes.

The classic tea story comes to us from Zen, the mystical branch of Buddhism:

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”

“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”



A Cup of Tea

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm. You're welcome.

’ve just returned from a Tibetan Buddhist Centre today as they were the host for this months interfaith council meeting. This council in my city has been running for 15 years and devoted to promoting tolerance and better understanding between peoples of different faiths.

I went to a Tibetan off shoot Kadampa lineage. I read in the history the Dalai Lama had an issue with it, the golung tradition so there was a split. Many Buddhist don't consider it a real tradition. I almost got banned from a Buddhist site for mentioning it's name. Tibetan does have a lot of supernatural. Think a lot of lineages do. However, I wouldn't expect myself to be well knowledge since I don't speak the language nor have the culture of most Buddhist faiths. Mahayana and tibetan, it seems, go off a lot of commentaries and other things outside the suttas.

Our host was invited to provide a short presentation on Buddhism with an opportunity for questions and answers. It was suggested for historic reasons Tibetan Buddhism was closer to Hinduism than other branches of Buddhism. The belief in reincarnation was cited as an example.

Don't know if tibetan belief in god. If not, it's rebirth not reincarnation. Just sayin'

Neither Hinduism nor Judaism has developed too far beyond its culture of origin, nor would we expect them too. T

That I disagree. That's probably why we have not had world peace. If we think each other's is behind, we will be in a circle of trying to go further but keeping each other back. That view is counterproductive.

So we sacrifice the lower part of our nature to follow the noble path. In so doing we become enlightened or saved.

Sacrifice in itself is in both. I think the general term and definition is one of the core of many religions. As for the detail within each system the words are different.

Divine or omniscient qualities such as Christ is considered Divine in Christianity.

I provided teachings from Buddha that emphasised these Divine qualities of Buddha earlier in the thread and there are more along this theme.

Perhaps the biggest divergence for both Christianity and Buddhism is the extent to which Their follower’s beliefs and practices no longer reflect Their Founders original intent.

Now is a time of convergence and unity like no other time in history.

Can't remember which this referred to. Was trying configure which info to quote.

But many see The Buddha divine others don't. Divinity isn't the core of Buddhism. In other words, you don't need to believe The Buddha is divine and walk on water for his message to be that of practice. Not the suttas and sutras but the Dharma.

But one thing about your view I'm not too keen on is that other religions our outdated. That's counterproductive and I can't see us having world peace if we think of our peers as behind on someway.

Edited. My auto edit likes go make up words just go make me mad.*

 

[CG Didymus]

Christ and Buddha are arguably amongst a small handful of men who have had the most influence on humanity over the last two thousand years. Let’s consider Their lives and Teachings. These two men have brought teachings that have profoundly shaped the moral, spiritual and intellectual lives of millions who have followed their Teachings. However some would argue they exemplify two irreconcilably different paradigms, Abrahamic and Dharmic. So have these Great Educators brought spiritual paths that are so divergent that they can’t be reconciled. On the other hand with some closer attention to what we know of their teachings, the historic circumstances from which they have emerged, and how their teachings have evolved through the centuries perhaps they are much more similar than different. Can we have a convergence of two very different traditions or are they irreconcilably divergent?

Comments and questions as you will.

Doesn't this bring in the question of reincarnation again? Christians say that people got one chance. Believe in Jesus and be saved from hell. How does that jive with reincarnation and working out your karmic baggage through multiple lives? But both these ideas don't go with what Baha'is believe anyway. So why try and make them converge into anything? For Baha'is, they are both wrong. The thing Baha'is need to show is how in some mysterious "original" form, both these religions taught complimentary spiritual concepts.

But you know me, I'm good with people in different times and places coming up with spiritual ideas that fit the needs of their time. Which isn't that much different than saying God gave people in different times and places differing beliefs to fit their needs in their culture at that particular time. Or is it? Yeah, I think it's a lot different.

My way allows for people to think that they get reborn over and over again until they reach perfection. And another people to think there is a perfect Savior that will forgive them of their sins and will let them into a heavenly paradise to live for eternity with him. Are either of them right? Who knows, but how many "adjustments" to these basic beliefs arise within those religions? Which, to me, kind of shows that people do come up with ideas about their religion to change it to fit the new times and new places where that religion ends up in.

 

[godnotgod]

Doesn't this bring in the question of reincarnation again? Christians say that people got one chance. Believe in Jesus and be saved from hell. How does that jive with reincarnation and working out your karmic baggage through multiple lives? But both these ideas don't go with what Baha'is believe anyway. So why try and make them converge into anything? For Baha'is, they are both wrong. The thing Baha'is need to show is how in some mysterious "original" form, both these religions taught complimentary spiritual concepts.

But you know me, I'm good with people in different times and places coming up with spiritual ideas that fit the needs of their time. Which isn't that much different than saying God gave people in different times and places differing beliefs to fit their needs in their culture at that particular time. Or is it? Yeah, I think it's a lot different.

My way allows for people to think that they get reborn over and over again until they reach perfection. And another people to think there is a perfect Savior that will forgive them of their sins and will let them into a heavenly paradise to live for eternity with him. Are either of them right? Who knows, but how many "adjustments" to these basic beliefs arise within those religions? Which, to me, kind of shows that people do come up with ideas about their religion to change it to fit the new times and new places where that religion ends up in.

Both reincarnation and personal salvation hinge on the existence of a self that is either reincarnated or saved. But no one to date has been able to show exactly where this so-called 'self' called 'i' actually exists. It is purely a fantasy of the mind, which itself is a self-created principle coming out of consciousness.

As for Perfection, if something is perfect, then there is no need for any change to occur in order to attain perfection. True Perfection is changeless. So, then, how do we explain all of this that we see as 'changing', unless it is a grand illusion, a maya, which is exactly what the Hindus have been telling us for centuries, while Buddhism finds that all phenomena is empty of inherent self-nature, and Zen says that "from the very beginning, not a single thing exists".

re: reincarnation: Who, or what, is it that is 'reborn'? Nirvana is the dissolution of the fictional self called the seeker, and therefore the cessation of the wheel of births and deaths.

"We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all."
Kalu Rinpoche

 

[godnotgod]

The Self and Liberation

"The fundamental difference between Buddhism and other religions is that Buddhism has no God or gods before whom people bow down in return for peace of mind. The spirit enmeshed in the Buddha’s teachings refuses to offer a god in exchange for freedom from anxiety. Instead, freedom from anxiety can only be found at the point where the Self settles naturally upon itself.

Far too often we get entangled in setting up some goal, and by pursuing that goal we invest it with the power to give meaning to our lives. Ironically, and unfortunately, we suffer because of our goals. Inflating that goal with great significance sets our “self” in opposition to the goal and we suffer in direct proportion to our fixation on attaining that goal. Consequently, there is always going to be a sense of instability or anxiety in our lives.*

When I use the term Self**, I am not referring to some fixed entity; the Self is life and life is functioning. Functioning means activity which works toward the world in which this Self lives. When I talk of a “Self settling upon itself” do not interpret this to mean a withdrawing and escaping from society. On the contrary, this expression means that your life manifests itself as life. It is a Self that works to settle or bring composure to everything you encounter in your life."

Excerpted from “From the Zen Kitchen to Enlightenment” by Dogen and Uchiyama

* 'self and other' being a conceptual framework as a subject/object split in the mind
** 'Self', with a capital 'S', is another word for 'Pure Consciousness'. It just sees what is, rather than thinks, ie conceptualizes, what is, without an agent of seeing called 'I'.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thanks for your response. It’s quite a major topic to compare two different religions.

The Buddha's teachings are about as contrary to Christ's as it gets - which shouldn't be a surprise since each set out to resolve different issues and came from very different cultures.

Of course they have developed from two very different cultures and have evolved over the centuries in relative isolation from each other. Yet when I meet Christians and Buddhists they share a common humanity and concern for their families and communities. They both live lives worthy of admiration.

It’s hard to argue against the merits of the eightfold path.

The eightfold path is at the heart of the middle way, which turns from extremes, and encourages us to seek the simple approach.

The eightfold path is Right Understanding, Right Intent, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.

Buddhism - The Eightfold Path

Christ came as the Messiah to reconcile man to God by addressing the barrier between us: sin (and it's consequence: death). He summarized God's Law, his will for us, with just two short commands: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your fellow man. In fact, so important is love that God is said to be love. Christ exemplifies love through his self-sacrifice for the sake of others. Though he did not desire to suffer and die, he took on that role because his love for God and for us was greater than his concern for himself. We are called to similarly give our lives to God doing good works, loving others. This ultimately leads to reunion with God and to eternal life.

I agree that Christ was the Jewish Messiah and fulfilled many prophecies in the Hebrew Bible. Christ transformed that message in a way that enabled not just the Jewish people but the whole of humanity to partake of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31).

Buddha transformed the teachings of the Hindu culture into a new creation that was to become more universal. The Hindus regard Buddha as an avatar of The Supreme God Vishnu. Buddha certainly made statements that might be construed as His nature being Divine in some traditions. It’s true also that some traditions appear atheistic.

Freedom from suffering and attaining enlightenment could have parallels with hell and heaven, salvation or liberation coming through the Teachings of Buddha.

The Buddha was concerned with suffering above all else - how to escape it. It is commonly said in Buddhism that life is suffering - for at every turn there is some degree of unpleasantness. There is some degree suffering in birth, in death, in sickness, in being denied whatever you desire, etc. And, being raised in India everyone believed in Samsara - the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. So you didn't just have to put up with this suffering once - it is understood as an infinite cycle of suffering. And in order to escape samsara, to reach Nirvana, one must address the underlying source of Samsara: Karma, our moral actions. In particular, existing karma must be worked through and we must not produce more karma (save neutral karma). This means that one must both not do anything bad as well as not doing anything good.

I don’t believe believe Buddha taught people to be inactive and not do good.

Furthermore, attachments to others are considered to be a bad thing and a source of suffering and illusion. As such, a practicing Buddhist cannot love in the same sense as what is called love in Christianity. They use the term but it is not really love.

Perhaps the compassion of Buddha exemplified is analogous to the love of Christ.

Being attached to our sinful nature and possessions would hinder spiritual progress though some Christians like to preach the prosperity gospel.

Jesus has the final world about that.

Matthew 25:31-46

While Buddhism has many sects, the core teachings above are irreconcilable with Christianity and are contrary to it.

It’s certainly true that Christianity has many sects that are irreconcilable with each other too. It would be useful to make a list of the key differences between Buddhism and Christianity. I agree they are very different.

EDIT: They also believe there is no soul, which is also irreconcilable with Christianity if taken at face value. You might be able to re-interpret to simply mean that people are always changing or something, but this would still be irreconcilable with God in Christianity - who is said to be unchanging.

Yet some traditions believe in a rebirth in a way that suggests life after death, and Judaism upon which Christianity is founded has little to say about the existence of a soul and afterlife.

Thanks again for your post and please forgive my weary musings.

 

[iam1me]

Thanks for your response. It’s quite a major topic to compare two different religions.


Of course they have developed from two very different cultures and have evolved over the centuries in relative isolation from each other. Yet when I meet Christians and Buddhists they share a common humanity and concern for their families and communities. They both live lives worthy of admiration.

Yes - to truly gain an understanding of even one religion is quite complex. Religion is fundamentally human, addressing our core values, beliefs, and raison d'être - both on the macro level of humanity, and on the individual level. Culture, politics, history, etc. it all combines into a holistic framework. And people across all ages and cultural barriers are fundamentally the same - so there is redundancy in the types of questions that people have, and certain things they hope to find in religion. That said, religions can be quite diverse in how they address these questions and the problems that we face as humans.

It’s hard to argue against the merits of the eightfold path.

The eightfold path is at the heart of the middle way, which turns from extremes, and encourages us to seek the simple approach.

The eightfold path is Right Understanding, Right Intent, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.

Buddhism - The Eightfold Path

I was never particularly impressed with the Eightfold Path. It's lengthy, but it doesn't say much. You might as well say: whatever you do, do it right. That's not helpful unless you teach people how to do things "right."

Freedom from suffering and attaining enlightenment could have parallels with hell and heaven, salvation or liberation coming through the Teachings of Buddha.

The goals and methods of the two are a contradiction between each other. Eternal life vs escaping the cycle of death and rebirth. Love vs attachment. Doing good works vs ceasing to produce anything but neutral karma.

Also, Christianity does not fear suffering the way Buddhism does. While not desirable, suffering is not inherently bad - and in fact can be good. Buddhism goes to an extreme by focusing so much on suffering that their entire outlook on life is framed in terms of suffering. They don't say "yes there is some suffering in life that you have to deal with, but there's also a lot of good - and that good does/can outweigh the bad." They say "there is some suffering, so let's find a way to end it all."

I don’t believe believe Buddha taught people to be inactive and not do good.

Good/wholesome karma keeps one in Samsara the same as bad/unwholesome karma. To escape Samsara, one must cease producing karma - which means that you must cease to do good and bad.

Perhaps the compassion of Buddha exemplified is analogous to the love of Christ.

Being attached to our sinful nature and possessions would hinder spiritual progress though some Christians like to preach the prosperity gospel.

Jesus has the final world about that.

Matthew 25:31-46

Nothing in Buddhism is analogous to the love of Christ or to love in general. "Self" and "other" are illusions, and attachment a source of suffering. These are the very things that Buddhism attempts to free you from. And if you don't believe in "self" or "other" and you have no attachments, then there can be no love.

It’s certainly true that Christianity has many sects that are irreconcilable with each other too. It would be useful to make a list of the key differences between Buddhism and Christianity. I agree they are very different.

I've tried to keep things at a general, core level. Once you start trying to compare all the different sects of different religions -there will be no end >.> haha

Thanks again for your post and please forgive my weary musings.

I enjoy your thread. I was actually considering making a Christianity vs Buddhism thread myself, since there are many who like to combine the two and - IMHO - it doesn't work.

 

[Marcion]

I enjoy your thread. I was actually considering making a Christianity vs Buddhism thread myself, since there are many who like to combine the two and - IMHO - it doesn't work.

Well, not the fundamentalist leaning type of christianity, but I've seen catholic monks practising Zen Buddhism, so it can be combined I guess.
I have also seen catholic christians practise devotional Tantra-Yoga.
As long as you focus more on the tantric part of christianity in the genuine teachings of Yeshua there need not be any problem.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Yes, but that is the Jesus Christ of Christianity who was developed by christians.

The Yeshua of Q-lite (I would say the historical Yeshua) teaches about karma and how to avoid and get rid of it in order to become like the beloved Father, Rule of God or Holy Spirit (enlightened).
Yeshua teaches that your only desire or goal should become to reach the Rule of God or Holy Spirit.
He also teaches that the latter is infinite and that you should search It within yourselves, not without.
So Yeshua teaches more or less the same as Buddha.

Christians made the original teachings of Yeshua less esoteric and more exoteric by adapting the sayings and adding their own in a more exoteric framework.
If the Infinite loving Father or Holy Spirit lives inside your subjective 'I-feeling', that does not mean that "you are your own light". It does mean that the Light that lives within you has Cosmic proportions and is very different from what you have always imagined it to be. Yeshua teaches how to realise that.

A broken person is unbroken by following their own light in one view
A broken person needs the original potter to recreate the marred image in the other
Similar in some respects but different in others

Jesus is 'a horn' of strength in a Christian view, but what is the strength in other views
Praise finale psalms: part 3 - Ps 148

 

[Marcion]

A broken person is unbroken by following their own light in one view
A broken person needs the original potter to recreate the marred image in the other
Similar in some respects but different in others

Jesus is 'a horn' of strength in a Christian view, but what is the strength in other views
Praise finale psalms: part 3 - Ps 148

Christ Jesus is not the same as the original Yeshua.
You possibly wouldn't even like him nor would you recognize him.

 

[iam1me]

Well, not the fundamentalist leaning type of christianity, but I've seen catholic monks practising Zen Buddhism, so it can be combined I guess.
I have also seen catholic christians practise devotional Tantra-Yoga.
As long as you focus more on the tantric part of christianity in the genuine teachings of Yeshua there need not be any problem.

Certain practices, like yoga, can be adopted without too much issue - meditation is part of the Christian tradition as well, though not to the same degree as in Buddhism. However, what I am referring to is the core teachings and philosophy of these two religions. This cannot be done without a major re-interpretation of one or both of the religions to make them fit a mold they don't belong to. But when you do this, you have simply created a straw man of the religion(s)- you haven't really brought these two near-polar opposite religions together.

 

[godnotgod]

A broken person is unbroken by following their own light in one view
A broken person needs the original potter to recreate the marred image in the other
Similar in some respects but different in others

Jesus is 'a horn' of strength in a Christian view, but what is the strength in other views
Praise finale psalms: part 3 - Ps 148

In the Buddhist view, it is the vast, limitless ocean that the drop finds its strength in. In Hinduism it is Brahman, 'the Ground of all Being', or 'Pure Consciousness'. In both cases the notion of an individual 'person', 'self', or 'soul' in Identification is dissolved. IOW, the true identity of the individual seeker is The Infinite itself. Knowing this is called Enlightenment or Realization.

In Christianity, all depends upon an individual soul or self in need of 'salvation', rewarded for good works with a heaven. IOW, the identity of the person survives death and goes on in either eternal joy, or eternal damnation.

In Eastern thought, all dualities are transcended upon merging with The Absolute. Relative Joy and Sorrow become a study to this new man, but he now dwells in a state of Absolute Joy, for which no opposite exists. The Buddha realized this state while still alive on this Earth.

Taoism states that "In weakness is our strength". Think of the submission and humility of Jesus. It is the receptivity of the feminine aspect where this strength is found. The female conquers the male from underneath. In Judo and some other Eastern martial arts like Aikido, one uses the opponent's aggression to one's own advantage, flowing with the attack, rather than meeting it head on. This is the major problem with Christianity, where a Malevolent Evil called Satan is at war with a figure of Perfect Goodness called "Jesus". In the East, Yin and Yang are complementary, not at loggerheads with one another.

 

[Marcion]

This cannot be done without a major re-interpretation of one or both of the religions to make them fit a mold they don't belong to. But when you do this, you have simply created a straw man of the religion(s)- you haven't really brought these two near-polar opposite religions together.

That depends on your approach. Buddhism is more a life style than a religion just like tantra-yoga is.
Christianity was added onto the mysticism taught by the original Yeshua, but if you want to return to that mystical core you again come closer to the spiritual practices also known in Buddhism and in tantra-yoga.

To say that the christian religion itself was the core is the other approach (in which I do not believe, it doesn't seem to me historically correct).

 

[godnotgod]

That depends on your approach. Buddhism is more a life style than a religion just like tantra-yoga is.
Christianity was added onto the mysticism taught by the original Yeshua, but if you want to return to that mystical core you again come closer to the spiritual practices also known in Buddhism and in tantra-yoga.

To say that the christian religion itself was the core is the other approach (in which I do not believe, it doesn't seem to me historically correct).

Yes. The mystical experience always comes first, after which the orthodox teachings become codified into a belief system. Then develops offshoots of the orthodoxy as a return to the mystical experience. Yoga is the mystical branch of Hinduism; Zen that of Buddhism; The Contemplatives that of orthodox Christianity; Kabballah that of Judaism; Sufism that of Islam, etc., etc. Even mystical Taoism has a Taoist Church.

 

[whirlingmerc]

In the Buddhist view, it is the vast, limitless ocean that the drop finds its strength in. In Hinduism it is Brahman, 'the Ground of all Being', or 'Pure Consciousness'. In both cases the notion of an individual 'person', 'self', or 'soul' in Identification is dissolved. IOW, the true identity of the individual seeker is The Infinite itself. Knowing this is called Enlightenment or Realization.

In Christianity, all depends upon an individual soul or self in need of 'salvation', rewarded for good works with a heaven. IOW, the identity of the person survives death and goes on in either eternal joy, or eternal damnation.

In Eastern thought, all dualities are transcended upon merging with The Absolute. Relative Joy and Sorrow become a study to this new man, but he now dwells in a state of Absolute Joy, for which no opposite exists. The Buddha realized this state while still alive on this Earth.

Taoism states that "In weakness is our strength". Think of the submission and humility of Jesus. It is the receptivity of the feminine aspect where this strength is found. The female conquers the male from underneath. In Judo and some other Eastern martial arts like Aikido, one uses the opponent's aggression to one's own advantage, flowing with the attack, rather than meeting it head on. This is the major problem with Christianity, where a Malevolent Evil called Satan is at war with a figure of Perfect Goodness called "Jesus". In the East, Yin and Yang are complementary, not at loggerheads with one another.

In Christianity and Judaism God is Transcendent apart from what he created

 

[iam1me]

That depends on your approach. Buddhism is more a life style than a religion just like tantra-yoga is.

Christianity was added onto the mysticism taught by the original Yeshua, but if you want to return to that mystical core you again come closer to the spiritual practices also known in Buddhism and in tantra-yoga.

To say that the christian religion itself was the core is the other approach (in which I do not believe, it doesn't seem to me historically correct).

Both religions have their own culture and practices that can be enjoyed even if one doesn't adhere to the religion itself. To truly be a Buddhist, Christian, or a member of pretty much any religion ever - one must accept certain beliefs and teachings. If you are tossing the beliefs asside to meld them - you are simply gutting them of meaning and wearing a hollowed out husk.

And you keep asserting some mystic, "original" Yeshua. While I'm not against questioning orthodoxy, one shouldn't just assert such things to fit with their world view. One should tackle and come to an understanding of what is actually recorded concerning Christ.

 

[Firedragon-2]

Tantric types of teaching are very practical and effective. They have very little if any kind of religious speculation (such as predictions of apocalyps). So wherever you find practical instructions about how to lead a life of spiritual progress or growth, that can be considered tantra.

If you study the tantric teachings of Yeshua without the later context of the gospels, it is easier (but by no means easy) to penetrate more deeply into their underlying meaning. The newer texts (outside of those original teachings) do not interact with the original teachings in the way that they were originally meant, so there is a breach line between the tantric content and the religious overlay in the gospel stories.

The Markan and Matthean texts you quote are in part copied from Q-lite (original teachings of Yeshua). In Matthew 13: 9-13 you can see the author clumsily mixes one Q-lite saying with another Q-lite saying showing that the author has no idea of the deeper meaning of the saying or he has no interest to know it and respect its original context.

In Mark 4: 11 the author of Mark is also copying from Q-lite.

This very important saying may have stood at the opening of the Q-lite saying collection explaining the reason for the secretive nature of the Q-lite instructions. aMark absorbed this saying into his story line and aMatthew and aLuke copied it (from gMark) only in its Markan context not bothering to give it another (double) place between other Q-lite sayings.

The author of John is a more mystic gospel writer who knew GMark, gMatthew and gLuke, so it is not surprising he was mining these gospels for his mystic vision of the gospel story. But he does not use the Q-lite saying collection and he also has no direct contact with the tantric-mystic content of the sayings collection.

Of course you can cherry-pick the more mystic parts of the texts and applaud the "unity" between the authors, but that would not be a fair assessment of what the authors of the gospels were trying to do. They wrote their own gospels because they did not like the outlook of earlier gospel writers and wanted to write an "improved" version of the gospel with a new "better" religious theology.

Q-lite is the most tantric text and the rest are more religious, less tantric texts that are not written in the spirit of the historical Yeshua.

Great.

Although, even Q is not Jesus's words. Maybe a bit, but we don't know which bit.

 

[paarsurrey]

Christ and Buddha are arguably amongst a small handful of men who have had the most influence on humanity over the last two thousand years. Let’s consider Their lives and Teachings. These two men have brought teachings that have profoundly shaped the moral, spiritual and intellectual lives of millions who have followed their Teachings. However some would argue they exemplify two irreconcilably different paradigms, Abrahamic and Dharmic. So have these Great Educators brought spiritual paths that are so divergent that they can’t be reconciled. On the other hand with some closer attention to what we know of their teachings, the historic circumstances from which they have emerged, and how their teachings have evolved through the centuries perhaps they are much more similar than different. Can we have a convergence of two very different traditions or are they irreconcilably divergent?

Comments and questions as you will.

One means that Buddha and Jesus were 500 years apart in time and hundreds of km apart in places, who come that their teachings are similar?
This issue has been taken into account by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, the Promised Messiah, Imam Mahdi and End Times Reformer of the Revealed Religions in one of his books "Jesus In India" :
ps://www.alislam.org/library/book/jesus-in-india/

One may like to look into it.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Buddha and Yeshua both taught similarly; it is the religions that were created around them that taught differently.

Both taught selflessness, to seek enlightenment, that Works/Karma lead to salvation, that none attachment leads to the Divine, to meditate, give up wealth, to work toward Oneness as the ultimate goal.

• There is no self or to hate the self (psyche).
• Live a life serving others.
• They both use the word heart contextually to mean soul.
• Both teach that enlightenment is within us.
• Both teach to meditate on the infinite consciousness.
• Both break down the previous religious misunderstandings, and ask people to question.
• They both taught the golden rule, 'do unto others as you wish done unto you'.
• Both taught not to strike back those who strike you.
• Not to judge.
• Love your enemies.
• Overcome hate with love.
• More blessed to give than to receive.
• Avoid being religious for show.
• Both taught the Way (Dharma).
  
• etc...

In my opinion.

How could Buddha and Jesus are close or similar in teachings if they had not got their teachings from the same G-d , the source of their knowledge/light/revelations?

Right, please?

Regards

 

[Firedragon-2]

How could Buddha and Jesus are close or similar in teachings if they had not got their teachings from the same G-d , the source of their knowledge/light/revelations?

Right, please?

Regards

How would you deem that they are not from the same God?