Buddha and Jesus

[loverofhumanity]

There are certainly some similarities, but one obvious difference is that the Buddha taught for 40 years or so following his awakening, while Jesus died a violent death at quite a young age.

Yes very true but so far as influence and impact on humanity, Christ's 3 years had a major influence on the world not any less than the Buddha's.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Why do people need to associate so called jesus to an enlightened person like Buddha. Jesus could well been a written character centuries after his supposed death, so when there are so many proofs of non-existence of a character called jesus, I think this is an insecurity on part of christians/ seeing the world through their brainwashed minds from childhood. These kind of comparisons needs to stop. Don't try to hijack others.

As other poster pointed out, assuming if jesus existed, he is just a normal human who was caught up in cycles of birth and death and things like dead body resurrecting is biggest joke and amounts to total fraud as per buddhism.

Jesus was also a Buddha just with a different name. Both of Them taught truth. Belief in both Buddha and Jesus are an integral part of our Faith.

 

[paarsurrey]

Buddha and Jesus

Buddha and Jesus were messengers and prophets of G-d, they were never gods or sons of G-d. Right? Please
Regards

 

[buddhist]

Buddha ... were messengers and prophets of G-d

Nope. It is written that the Buddha stated that he was superior to all gods. The deities came to worship him, not the other way around.

 

[von bek]

Buddha and Jesus

Buddha and Jesus were messengers and prophets of G-d, they were never gods or sons of G-d. Right? Please
Regards

In your beliefs, they were prophets of your God. Not to Buddhists and Christians, though. This is something you will have to agree to disagree about.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Buddha and Jesus

Buddha and Jesus were messengers and prophets of G-d, they were never gods or sons of G-d. Right? Please
Regards

Yes that's our understanding. The 'son of God' is a title given to Christ and His followers. Buddha originally taught about a God we believe but His teachings have been lost over time. Even Buddha said His Dhamma would disappear over time.

So Jesus and Buddha were Messengers never Gods.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In your beliefs, they were prophets of your God. Not to Buddhists and Christians, though. This is something you will have to agree to disagree about.

We need to make a clear distinction between what Christ taught and what Christians believe and what Buddha taught and what His followers say.

Truth comes from the Messenger not the followers.

 

[LuisDantas]

By one reading. Not a particularly informed one IMO.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

how many of you thank they came from the same place. how similar are their teachings?

budda aint got nothing on him.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since this thread is still moving, let me ask...

How can one person who teaches life through sacrifice and another person who teaches life through charity have anything to do with each other?

Jesus and prophets before him always emphasized sacrifice whether of oneself, an animal, and human.

The Buddha and his disciples always emphasize giving oneself to others alive. One of his greatest tenants is the value and sacredness of life and not taking life.

How can you save people from suffering if you are not literally and spiritually interacting in their well-being? The Buddha did interact in people's well-being. He didn't just say "show compassion", he wasn't just compassion, he acted in compassion and through his actions not his words (our practice not our beliefs) we are relieved from suffering.

Totally different message that Jesus gave. Christianity shows death is the way to life. It puts a lot of emphasis on "you have to get rid of something to gain something."

The Buddha didn't teach to "give away to gain." He taught to "train and change." He didn't deny that we "sin", if one likes. We all act in our delusions. We, ourselves, change how we think. No one can do it for us. Our offerings and sacrifices are a way to thank who or whatever we give reverence to but they are in no way a replacement for our own spiritual development.

The Buddha and Jesus Christ may have other people's thoughts in mind. I just find The Buddha had a more healthier solution to the issue and way less political at that than Jesus and his father.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Since this thread is still moving, let me ask...

How can one person who teaches life through sacrifice and another person who teaches life through charity have anything to do with each other?

Jesus and prophets before him always emphasized sacrifice whether of oneself, an animal, and human.

The Buddha and his disciples always emphasize giving oneself to others alive. One of his greatest tenants is the value and sacredness of life and not taking life.

How can you save people from suffering if you are not literally and spiritually interacting in their well-being? The Buddha did interact in people's well-being. He didn't just say "show compassion", he wasn't just compassion, he acted in compassion and through his actions not his words (our practice not our beliefs) we are relieved from suffering.

Totally different message that Jesus gave. Christianity shows death is the way to life. It puts a lot of emphasis on "you have to get rid of something to gain something."

The Buddha didn't teach to "give away to gain." He taught to "train and change." He didn't deny that we "sin", if one likes. We all act in our delusions. We, ourselves, change how we think. No one can do it for us. Our offerings and sacrifices are a way to thank who or whatever we give reverence to but they are in no way a replacement for our own spiritual development.

The Buddha and Jesus Christ may have other people's thoughts in mind. I just find The Buddha had a more healthier solution to the issue and way less political at that than Jesus and his father.

My understanding is they appeared at different times to different people. They are like Physicians and diagnose the remedy for the illness of that time. The remedy for one time and sickness will be different for a different time and illness. So They prescribed what was the best medicine for that time and the different people they appeared amongst.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My understanding is they appeared at different times to different people. They are like Physicians and diagnose the remedy for the illness of that time. The remedy for one time and sickness will be different for a different time and illness. So They prescribed what was the best medicine for that time and the different people they appeared amongst.

That makes sense, though I disagree. I honestly feel we try to put all the world prophets in line with each other to kind of smooth out the differences and make peace.

Someone told me once when I said I still am Catholic regardless if I practice (taking sacraments is a marriage to the Church) and they said "you're trying to keep one foot on either line 'just in case'." However severely wrong this person was, he does have a point. We can't keep trying to make peace by finding a medium between two sides.

If one side of the world speaks Chinese and the other side speaks French, and a prophet from both sides had goals to to save the world that doesn't mean their worldview, culture, and language are similar or the same to each other (just in different parts of the world and/or time periods). It means they are totally different from each other.

So, Jesus Christ is completely different than The Buddha.
They were in different times, which means different generation (like in the 80s who would have thought we'd have a Star Trek blue tooth phone in our ears?) Same then. The Buddha came years before The Church and Bible were even thought of and put together. His goals were different in method. He wanted the people to reach enlightenment.

So, I don't see how they can go together, really. Jesus looked out to his father for his divinity. The Buddha looked within himself for enlightenment. The Buddha denied that divinity (god/s for example) was a part of our enlightenment. Jesus said divinity/god was a highest requirement.

The time difference doesn't make a difference. If they were siting side by side today and had a good conversation, Siddhartha Gautama would have a fit knowing that Jesus' approved of Jewish teachings of animal sacrifice-way back in the day. Then he'd be mad that Jesus' disciples even promoted that Jesus himself sacrificed himself physically when the way to help people from sin/suffering is to be with them physically not just by faith.

Since Siddhartha is The Buddha, I don't think he'd fret anymore. However, Jesus did yell and he did get upset at his own people and even at Satan. So, I honestly don't see a strong comparison other than they both are human and want to help the world. (Don't most of us, though?)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@loverofhumanity You don't have to reply to it all. Just sayin'

 

[Rick O'Shez]

budda aint got nothing on him.

Buddha would win in a fight though.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That makes sense, though I disagree. I honestly feel we try to put all the world prophets in line with each other to kind of smooth out the differences and make peace.

Someone told me once when I said I still am Catholic regardless if I practice (taking sacraments is a marriage to the Church) and they said "you're trying to keep one foot on either line 'just in case'." However severely wrong this person was, he does have a point. We can't keep trying to make peace by finding a medium between two sides.

If one side of the world speaks Chinese and the other side speaks French, and a prophet from both sides had goals to to save the world that doesn't mean their worldview, culture, and language are similar or the same to each other (just in different parts of the world and/or time periods). It means they are totally different from each other.

So, Jesus Christ is completely different than The Buddha.
They were in different times, which means different generation (like in the 80s who would have thought we'd have a Star Trek blue tooth phone in our ears?) Same then. The Buddha came years before The Church and Bible were even thought of and put together. His goals were different in method. He wanted the people to reach enlightenment.

So, I don't see how they can go together, really. Jesus looked out to his father for his divinity. The Buddha looked within himself for enlightenment. The Buddha denied that divinity (god/s for example) was a part of our enlightenment. Jesus said divinity/god was a highest requirement.

The time difference doesn't make a difference. If they were siting side by side today and had a good conversation, Siddhartha Gautama would have a fit knowing that Jesus' approved of Jewish teachings of animal sacrifice-way back in the day. Then he'd be mad that Jesus' disciples even promoted that Jesus himself sacrificed himself physically when the way to help people from sin/suffering is to be with them physically not just by faith.

Since Siddhartha is The Buddha, I don't think he'd fret anymore. However, Jesus did yell and he did get upset at his own people and even at Satan. So, I honestly don't see a strong comparison other than they both are human and want to help the world. (Don't most of us, though?)

Yes They had different missions but as you say They both came to help people and that is the main thing. Jesus taught mainly about love whereas Buddha taught mindfulness. We need both of these qualities.

I would rather be both a mindful and a loving person that just mindful or just loving. The different Teachers taught a different facet of truth, emphasised a different virtue and we can benefit from all virtues.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes They had different missions but as you say They both came to help people and that is the main thing. Jesus taught mainly about love whereas Buddha taught mindfulness. We need both of these qualities.

I would rather be both a mindful and a loving person that just mindful or just loving. The different Teachers taught a different facet of truth, emphasised a different virtue and we can benefit from all virtues.

I can see that.

What throws me off is the methods the two have to getting there. I honestly can't see how Jesus can be one of the prophets and be part of love and kindness when the method and way he got there was taking his own life and supporting the laws of Moses that dictated taking lives of animals and not for food. I can't see how love and kindness can come from that type of sacrifice. When I give an offering say money, it's a sacrifice because we need money to survive. However, if I had a child and offered my child (as my co-worker did when he was born) as a sacrifice, that is completely opposite of kindness that The Buddha taught. Their actually complete opposites.

I can respect Jesus but seeing the two reaching the same view of kindness would stag me.

This is harsh, but it drives my point. No disrespect intended:

It's like saying Murder-X's crime brought love and kindness the same love and kindness Innocent-Y gave in his actions of charity.

They may have the same morals: love and kindness
They may have the same motivation: To achieve it.

However, one finds the method through felony the other one through charity. I can't make the two in the same category only because they both wanted the same thing and found a means to get there.

I know harsh. You kind of understand where I'm coming from?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Buddha and Jesus

Buddha and Jesus were messengers and prophets of G-d, they were never gods or sons of G-d. Right? Please
Regards

The Buddha was a man, Gautama Siddhartha. He was not a prophet because his practice and teachings was not a calling from god or anyone outside of himself. It wasn't a vocation given to him so he would not be a prophet for anyone.

He wasn't a messenger from god either. He did believe gods exist (the ones in India) but knew nothing about the god outside his own country. He probably didn't know people can believe in just one god because many countries have always had and have multiple gods.

Who would he be a prophet and messenger for? There is no god. He didn't know anything about the Jewish view of god. He really didn't know how the Romans depicted god. So, objectively, how could he be a prophet of god logically and historically speaking?

The Buddha is not god and because god is not existent in his part of the world (not yours), he was not a son of any god either.

Jesus, on the other hand, it is written he is the son of god. He said he is the highest prophet and as an image and representative of his father, he does what his father says to save others (his father saves others through Christ).

The Buddha is no where in the picture.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Buddha is so popular! People keep trying to fit him into their religions - omnists, syncretists, universalists, new-agers, self-proclaimed prophets.

I think we should charge royalties.

 

[paarsurrey]

Nope. It is written that the Buddha stated that he was superior to all gods. The deities came to worship him, not the other way around.

Did Buddha write any scripture himself, or dictate it to anybody or authorized anybody to write on his behalf and checked it before releasing that to the public?
There are no chains of narrators that reach to Buddha and checking the characters of the narrators in between, please
One is not to quote anything from Buddha without qualifying it with the words like, may be he said. Then one could see the reasoning in the words ascribed to Buddha, only to be accepted if found reasonable, otherwise straightly and without hesitation to be rejected. Please
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Anybody, please

Regards

 

[loverofhumanity]

We understand it like this that Christ was like the seed which when sacrificed into the earth brought forth a tree with goodly fruit to benefit others. To sacrifice ones comforts and ease to guide others is what the Buddha taught - to be selfless. Christ was selfless.