Christian Love and Buddhist Compassion

[nazz]

Are the two equated? Is Christian Love the same as Buddhist's universal Compassion? Is this the battle of West (Catholic/Orthodoxy) vs. East (Buddhism/Bodhisattvas)? What are your thoughts?

I think they are the same except the Buddhist version includes all sentient beings

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm not fully sure of what you mean by this, but I suspect it is a generalization.

There are types of love, for example there is that kind of love that could better be described as attachment. For example a drunkard may be attached to their alcohol, or a person may be so attached to their forefathers that they imitate their forefather's superstitions.

However there are other types of love, such as the love which exercises forbearance to those who insult you, and i fail to see how such other types of love are an aggregate of ego when to me they would seem rather befitting of humility rather than ego.

It's not ego in the Freudian aspect in the latter part of your statement, but rather that such feelings, even acted upon as a virtue of benefit, remains a product of mind hence mind goes, love goes also.

Not intended as any disparagment or to discount the value of love, yet Buddhist compassion, while can be related and compared with love, should not be equated in light that mindfulness and right action may not always take a path in a way that it would be considered as such.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

On one level, they are basically the same thing. What I see taught of love in the New Testament, is basically what I see taught in Buddhism. However, there are differences. The underlying philosophy of each respective religion is different, so their shared concepts of love/compassion will have differences. In Christianity, there is one who loves, and the one who receives the love. There are concrete concepts of "me" and "you", separated. In other words, there is a "me" who does the loving, and a "you" who receives it; there's a clear cut concept of "me", "you", and these are separated. In Buddhism, there are no concepts of "me" and "you", both are empty of any self-nature. Therefore, the love isn't something that's done to someone else, but just a natural state of being, with no one who loves, and no one who receives the love.

 

[ChristineES]

I am not sure why one needs to be better than the other. I think both can be a good thing. There isn't any contest between the two that I am aware of (I mean, for most people). I am a Christian, but I like and put into practice many teachings of Buddhism.

 

[Jainarayan]

I am a Christian, but I like and put into practice many teachings of Buddhism.

Isn't one of your favorite books Living Buddha, Living Christ, or is it someone else? There is a follow-on book called Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers by Thich Nhat Hanh. I haven't read it yet, but I think it's a "dialogue" between Jesus and Buddha.

 

[ChristineES]

Isn't one of your favorite books Living Buddha, Living Christ, or is it someone else? There is a follow-on book called Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers by Thich Nhat Hanh. I haven't read it yet, but I think it's a "dialogue" between Jesus and Buddha.

Yes, it was me. I love that book. The two faiths have a lot of similarities and Thich Nhat Hanh has a wonderful way of highlighting those similarities.

 

[SageTree]

On one level, they are basically the same thing. What I see taught of love in the New Testament, is basically what I see taught in Buddhism. However, there are differences. The underlying philosophy of each respective religion is different, so their shared concepts of love/compassion will have differences. In Christianity, there is one who loves, and the one who receives the love. There are concrete concepts of "me" and "you", separated. In other words, there is a "me" who does the loving, and a "you" who receives it; there's a clear cut concept of "me", "you", and these are separated. In Buddhism, there are no concepts of "me" and "you", both are empty of any self-nature. Therefore, the love isn't something that's done to someone else, but just a natural state of being, with no one who loves, and no one who receives the love.

Certainly not all Christians feel that way about their 'separateness'.....
Just as some Buddhist mistake a 'me and you'.

Interconnectedness isn't mutually exclusive, nor is mistakenly dividing It.

Just speaking up here, sorry, just don't care for the generalisation either way it falls.

Hope you understand where I am coming from in sharing my thoughts.

:flower:

Isn't one of your favorite books Living Buddha, Living Christ, or is it someone else? There is a follow-on book called Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers by Thich Nhat Hanh. I haven't read it yet, but I think it's a "dialogue" between Jesus and Buddha.

One of mine as well, and of a priest I once had in the Anglican
Church of Canada.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Certainly not all Christians feel that way about their 'separateness'.....
Just as some Buddhist mistake a 'me and you'.

Interconnectedness isn't mutually exclusive, nor is mistakenly dividing It.

Just speaking up here, sorry, just don't care for the generalisation either way it falls.

Hope you understand where I am coming from in sharing my thoughts.

:flower:



One of mine as well, and of a priest I once had in the Anglican
Church of Canada.

No need to apologize. Certainly there are exceptions to the rule, so to speak. There are Christians who believe along the same lines as Buddhists, and vise versa. But, it's my opinion that we need to understand the differences just as much as the similarities. This doesn't make either one right or wrong, or either one better than the other, that's just the way it is.

 

[SageTree]

That was fantastically neutral
Nice change of pace for RF.

:namaste