Where Christianity and Buddhism Agree?

[sayak83]

It is a rather astonishing thing for monotheists to believe @Vouthon. I can admit that from a purely scholastic standpoint. It has commonalities with some pagan and Dharmic notions, as I believe you acknowledged.

Probably much more Dharmic though as you say- then compared to, as an example: Dionysus.

Jesus is lot like Krishna too, I've often thought. I've discussed in the Dharmic forums between Hindus and Buddhists- I'm not sure how far back the view of Krishna as the Supreme Godhead goes. Because it is hard for me to pinpoint this view in the Buddha's time, when the Greco-Buddhists not long after syncretized Krishna with Hercules.

I may be missing something, but this suggests Krishna was viewed like a demigod. I'm sure opinions abound here though.

A comparitive discussion regarding Buddha and Krishna would be interesting..

 

[sayak83]

Good points, though I should note that "Son of Man" didn't actually exist as an established eschatological title in the Second Temple period. It was a unique moniker Jesus used for himself by subtly adapting the idiom for "a human being" so that it became "the human being". If I might reference Professor Hurtado again:

“The Son of Man”: An Obsolete Phantom

At least from the 1970s onward, it has become increasingly widely granted that, in fact, there is no evidence for the supposed use of “the son of man” as a fixed title for any figure in second-temple Jewish tradition.[1] There are texts that describe a heavenly being who will come and lead God’s people in triumph, such as the Melchizedek figure in the Qumran text, 11QMelchizedek. But he’s called “Melchizedek,” not “the son of man”! And it appears that some expected the archangel Michael to serve in this role, but he too isn’t ever referred to by the title “the Son of Man.” As for the messianic figure of the Parables of 1 Enoch, I’ve repeatedly reminded readers that there too we don’t actually have “the son of man” as a fixed title for this figure (e.g., here). (The English translations all too typically mislead readers by rendering several Ethiopic expressions used in the Parables by this one fixed translation.)

We are left, thus, with what is rather clearly how the Evangelists read and intended the expression: a peculiar self-designation idiom used in the Gospels only by Jesus (some 80x). A “son of man” is, of course, an idiomatic way of designating a human being in ancient Semitic languages (Hebrew & Aramaic), and “sons of man” the plural equivalent. But the particularizing forms in Greek (ο υιος του ανθρωπου), or Aramaic (בר אנשא), or Hebrew (בנ האדם) are hard to find. So “the son of man” seems to have been something of a linguistic innovation, and would have had the sense of “the/this son of man” (in particular).​

So, “the Son of Man” wasn’t actually a familiar title for a well-known eschatological redeemer being/figure in second-temple Judaism.

And certainly, the idea of a divine agent of creation pre-existing eternally with God before his birth and then incarnating in human form - which Hurtado notes "appeared astonishingly early in the Christian movement" - is totally alien to Judaism, of any time then and now. Jesus was even included or subsumed within the cultic devotion and invocation in the shema (see 1 Corinthians 8:6), the strict monotheistic worship statement offered to the one almighty God by Jews, which was really pushing it to say the least i.e.

Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist (1 Corinthians 8:6)​

This was an already established early Christian creedal statement which scholars believe Paul quoted in this letter dated AD 53–57, so again it goes back to the circles of the very first disciples after Pentecost, and here the shema from the Torah which affirms God's oneness ("Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one" ) is adapted to include Jesus, the historical Galilean preacher, as both "the one Lord" and eternally pre-existent co-creator of the universe "through whom we exist".

Now, that was one way to ruffle some feathers and play the blasphemy game.

So nobody really has any clue how the early Christians came to understand Jesus in this radical, heretical way so soon after his death. Hurtado thinks it might have had to do with ecstatic revelatory experiences of the glorified Christ, following his crucifixion, in which they came to believe he had been a divine being and so was eternal even though he'd just been executed. But that's just an educated guess, of course, though he may well be right.

Discussing how early Christians came to consider Jesus divine will lead us far afield. Let's just note that they did and continue with the comparison.
One asymmetry between the two is that while Buddha lived for a long time and left a large literature of sayings, Jesus had a very short ministry that ended violently. Thus we have lots of materials regarding what Buddha thought, said and practiced....that for Jesus is understandably much less. Do you think this affects how well Christians can know about Jesus from the Bible, compared to say the Buddha from the Suttas? I typically come across the question "What would Jesus say or do or think?" and the answers diverge among Christians. For Buddha, such questions usually have quite objective answers, if we can successfully trawl through his 10,000 page thick Suttas and Vinayas diligently.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is difficult to tell what Christianity proposes.

It has been interpreted to justify doomsday cults, racism and slavery. But there is also the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, which are IMO the closest that it comes to Buddha Dharma.

Generally, though, it is just not very clear a doctrine.

 

[Lyndon]

So Zen would be considered clear by comparison??

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I did find it an interesting statement on that priest's part though, and it got me to thinking. Because I think Buddhists and Christians probably also agree that no person is capable of being perfect, because we all have the potential to do bad things. Christians should also ideally agree I think- that no one person or group of people can truly be blamed for evil in the world, which Buddhists tend to emphasize in our view of human nature.

What do you think friends? Is this an area where Christians and Buddhists agree, at least to some degree?

I realize that I'm jumping in late to the party.

I see two subjective issues here. Perfection and bad. Try this supposition; we are perfect and there is no bad.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Buddha's are not perfect? Arent people capable of attaining Buddhahood? Then, in Buddhism, perfection is achievable even if difficult.

Perfection is not difficult when you start with the idea that you already are perfect.

 

[Lyndon]

That would be delusional!!

 

[wizanda]

I typically come across the question "What would Jesus say or do or think?" and the answers diverge among Christians.

Because John, Paul and Simon have a different doctrine to Yeshua in the Synoptic Gospels, thus there is no concise answer...

Here have a look at this table I've started, that shows 3 different distinct beliefs.

In my opinion.

 

[Vouthon]

Discussing how early Christians came to consider Jesus divine will lead us far afield. Let's just note that they did and continue with the comparison.
One asymmetry between the two is that while Buddha lived for a long time and left a large literature of sayings, Jesus had a very short ministry that ended violently. Thus we have lots of materials regarding what Buddha thought, said and practiced....that for Jesus is understandably much less. Do you think this affects how well Christians can know about Jesus from the Bible, compared to say the Buddha from the Suttas? I typically come across the question "What would Jesus say or do or think?" and the answers diverge among Christians. For Buddha, such questions usually have quite objective answers, if we can successfully trawl through his 10,000 page thick Suttas and Vinayas diligently.

Yes, that's a very key difference between the two figures, I think.

When you think about it, Jesus actually did get a lot said and done in just under three years time-span, relatively speaking, but compared with the Buddha's long life and extensive library of attributed discourses, it is like a pebble compared to the ocean.

Jesus's preaching has a frenetic quality to it - the words, parables and pithy maxims of a generally young man of action - evidently on a determined mission that would lead fairly quickly to the big fiasco in the Jewish Temple, his betrayal, arrest, conviction and execution. And yet, he managed to have such an impact on his immediate circle of followers that they became convinced he was a pre-existent divinity after his death.

The Buddha's discourses are long and more sophisticated in their presentation, as befits someone who had a long time to reflect on things, with a good deal more intricacy. And yet he too was viewed as a supramundane being after his death.

That is why the four Gospels which tell us about the life and words of Jesus comprise 47% of the New Testament, whilst the Book of Acts (detailing the lives and early activities of Jesus's first followers after his death), the various epistles written by Paul and other sacred authors, and the Book of Revelation, total in at 53% of the combined volume of textual material.

If you think about it, the New Testament is majority Abhidhamma Pitaka (scholastic re-working and expansion by Jesus's followers) - which gets extended to gazillions of books by the apostolic fathers and early church fathers - whereas the Tripitaka has enormous sections of Suttas.

That said, it bears remembering that everything we find attributed to both Jesus and the Buddha in the Bible/Tripitaka, were composed by their disciples after their deaths.

It's arguable that much of the Pali Canon was set to writing over a much longer span of time than the gospels: I mean, it was finally set to writing 454 years after the death of the Buddha at the Fourth Buddhist Council whereas the Gospels were all written within 30-60 years after Jesus's death, by the end of the first century. There are earlier Buddhist texts subsumed within the finished, canonical product and what they tell us is illuminating.

In the same elapse of time in Christianity, we'd seen hundreds of gospels - such as the Gnostic tradition - attributing lengthy discourses to Jesus, the creeds, the writings of the church fathers etc. The big difference here is that the church fathers were far more selective and narrow in what they made into sacred scripture.

If we limit Buddhist texts to the earliest strata of material, which scholars can identify with the oral tradition, we find perhaps a less systematized Buddha: the Sutta Nipata and Udana are thought by many scholars to be the earliest, from a pre-canonical/pre-sectarian phase of Buddhism in which a redaction of theology, through commentaries and editing by Bhikkhus, had not yet taken place. We can see this development reach a peak in the Abhidhamma Pitaka with its highly detailed reworking of the Suttas into a coherent system.

There is very little discussion of such systematic ideas as the three marks of existence, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path and anatta in the Sutta Nipata, especially in its earliest stratum of texts - these being the Atthaka Vaga and Parayana Vagga.

These two earliest sections of the Sutta Nipata are more focused on explaining what makes the ideal person, the ideal contemplative. There is no reference to structured monasticism in these texts, as with later Buddhism, rather the emphasis seems to be on solitary forest ascetics - hinting that these texts arise from a period before the emergence of the Sangha as we would know it.

The Atthakavagga has far more archaic phraseology than the other Suttas. It utilizes and re-works brahmanic terms and words, which indicates that a uniquely Buddhist vocabulary had not yet emerged when it was written. The Atthaka is also referenced by other suttas in the canon, which suggests that it must therefore predate them.

New Testament scholars can do the same for Jesus - and discern the Q Sayings Source as the most primitive material, although the synoptic gospels in general would be equivalent in primacy to the earliest Buddhist material I've just been discussing.

I would opine that we should see the later New Testament books, the subsequent apostolic fathers and the early church fathers extending all the way up past the First Council of Nicea doing something similar for Jesus's teachings as what the Sangha did relative to the Buddha.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That would be delusional!!

Not at all. The concept of perfection is illusory at best.

 

[Vouthon]

It is difficult to tell what Christianity proposes.

It has been interpreted to justify doomsday cults, racism and slavery. But there is also the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, which are IMO the closest that it comes to Buddha Dharma.

Generally, though, it is just not very clear a doctrine.

It may be difficult to tell what myriad Christian sects believe as a combined whole but scholars wouldn't say the same for Jesus IMHO.

The Q source underlying the gospels of Matthew and Luke is fairly compact and clear in its ethical framework.

There is still some debate as to the eschatological versus wisdom orientation of his teaching but there are also broad-lines of consensus in the scholarship.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, that's a very key difference between the two figures, I think.

When you think about it, Jesus actually did get a lot said and done in just under three years time-span, relatively speaking, but compared with the Buddha's long life and extensive library of attributed discourses, it is like a pebble compared to the ocean.

Jesus's preaching has a frenetic quality to it - the words, parables and pithy maxims of a generally young man of action - evidently on a determined mission that would lead fairly quickly to the big fiasco in the Jewish Temple, his betrayal, arrest, conviction and execution. And yet, he managed to have such an impact on his immediate circle of followers that they became convinced he was a pre-existent divinity after his death.

The Buddha's discourses are long and more sophisticated in their presentation, as befits someone who had a long time to reflect on things, with a good deal more intricacy. And yet he too was viewed as a supramundane being after his death.

That is why the four Gospels which tell us about the life and words of Jesus comprise 47% of the New Testament, whilst the Book of Acts (detailing the lives and early activities of Jesus's first followers after his death), the various epistles written by Paul and other sacred authors, and the Book of Revelation, total in at 53% of the combined volume of textual material.

If you think about it, the New Testament is majority Abhidhamma Pitaka (scholastic re-working and expansion by Jesus's followers) - which gets extended to gazillions of books by the apostolic fathers and early church fathers - whereas the Tripitaka has enormous sections of Suttas.

That said, it bears remembering that everything we find attributed to both Jesus and the Buddha in the Bible/Tripitaka, were composed by their disciples after their deaths.

It's arguable that much of the Pali Canon was set to writing over a much longer span of time than the gospels: I mean, it was finally set to writing 456 years after the death of the Buddha at the Fourth Buddhist Council whereas the Gospels were all written within 30-60 years after Jesus's death, by the end of the first century. There are earlier Buddhist texts subsumed within the finished, canonical product and what they tell us is illuminating.

In the same elapse of time in Christianity, we'd seen hundreds of gospels - such as the Gnostic tradition - attributing lengthy discourses to Jesus, the creeds, the writings of the church fathers etc. The big difference here is that the church fathers were far more selective and narrow in what they made into sacred scripture.

If we limit Buddhist texts to the earliest strata of material, which scholars can identify with the oral tradition, we find a much less systematized and wordy Buddha: the Sutta Nipata and Udana are thought by many scholars to be the earliest, from a pre-canonical/pre-sectarian phase of Buddhism in which a redaction of theology, through commentaries and editing by Bhikkhus, had not yet taken place. We can see this development reach a peak in the Abhidhamma Pitaka with its highly detailed reworking of the Suttas into a coherent system.

There is very little discussion of such systematic ideas as the three marks of existence, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path and anatta in the Sutta Nipata, especially in its earliest stratum of texts - these being the Atthaka Vaga and Parayana Vagga.

These two earliest sections of the Sutta Nipata are more focused on explaining what makes the ideal person, the ideal contemplative. There is no reference to structured monasticism in these texts, as with later Buddhism, rather the emphasis seems to be on solitary forest ascetics - hinting that these texts arise from a period before the emergence of the Sangha as we would know it.

The Atthakavagga has far more archaic phraseology than the other Suttas. It utilizes and re-works brahmanic terms and words, which indicates that a uniquely Buddhist vocabulary had not yet emerged when it was written. The Atthaka is also referenced by other suttas in the canon, which suggests that it must therefore predate them.

New Testament scholars can do the same for Jesus - and discern the Q Sayings Source as the most primitive material, although the synoptic gospels in general would be equivalent in primacy to the earliest Buddhist material I've just been discussing.

I would opine that we should see the later New Testament books, the subsequent apostolic fathers and the early church fathers extending all the way up past the First Council of Nicea doing something similar for Jesus's teachings as what the Sangha did relative to the Buddha.

While the Vinayas diverge, the Sutta pitakas don't diverge between the Sri Lankan and the Chinese recensions. Also in India, writing was never considered an important medium of communication among the learned cycles, and was considered an impure art. It was always the oral that was held in the highest regard, and this led to very sophisticated techniques of oral retention, that makes the transmission of Vedas possible.

Vedic chant - Wikipedia

In India, it's the written text that's more fluid than the oral rescensions.

Given this , its seems more likely that Buddha's words were well preserved in the Suttas, especially those that have the large, complex, repetitive structure that is the unique mark of the Indian technology of accurate oral transmission.

 

[Vouthon]

While the Vinayas diverge, the Sutta pitakas don't diverge between the Sri Lankan and the Chinese recensions. Also in India, writing was never considered an important medium of communication among the learned cycles, and was considered an impure art. It was always the oral that was held in the highest regard, and this led to very sophisticated techniques of oral retention, that makes the transmission of Vedas possible.

Vedic chant - Wikipedia

In India, it's the written text that's more fluid than the oral rescensions.

Given this , its seems more likely that Buddha's words were well preserved in the Suttas, especially those that have the large, complex, repetitive structure that is the unique mark of the Indian technology of accurate oral transmission.

This is very interesting sayak!

 

[sayak83]

This is very interesting sayak!

If you ever go to a Tibetan monastery or one of the classical Indian Sanskrit schools for Brahmins, you will see the monks chanting away day and night. In both these cases, they are mastering this kind of oral transmission technology. The proto-Sanskrit transmission of Vedas, which today retains the oldest living archaic Indo-European words and phonetics, has been declared a world heritage by UNESCO. I personally think that a far greater amount of research needs to be done in the style and techniques of Indo-Tibetan oral transmission, before we can understand which layers of the Suttas are likely to be the earliest.
Tradition of Vedic chanting - intangible heritage - Culture Sector - UNESCO
BBC NEWS | South Asia | UN boost for ancient Indian chants
The lessons from Mediterranean traditions don't work for Indian texts.

 

[Vouthon]

If you ever go to a Tibetan monastery or one of the classical Indian Sanskrit schools for Brahmins, you will see the monks chanting away day and night. In both these cases, they are mastering this kind of oral transmission technology. The proto-Sanskrit transmission of Vedas, which today retains the oldest living archaic Indo-European words and phonetics, has been declared a world heritage by UNESCO. I personally think that a far greater amount of research needs to be done in the style and techniques of Indo-Tibetan oral transmission, before we can understand which layers of the Suttas are likely to be the earliest.
Tradition of Vedic chanting - intangible heritage - Culture Sector - UNESCO
BBC NEWS | South Asia | UN boost for ancient Indian chants
The lessons from Mediterranean traditions don't work for Indian texts.

Again this is fascinating, and yes I agree - it is likely an easier (not "easy" I should caution) academic exercise to discern the earliest layers of the Jesus tradition than it is to do the same for the Suttas, given the difference in oral transmission cultures (which I hadn't been aware of).

 

[Vouthon]

My tradition doesn't rely on different core texts from most other Mahayana schools, but we do differ and share with Shingon, as well as Vajrayana generally- the notion that there is a true Buddha nature being taught. A transcendental reality akin to Brahman.

Let's discuss Buddha-nature.

Is it akin to the "luminous mind" one reads about from the Pali Canon, as in a further elaboration of the same underlying idea?

 

[sayak83]

Let's discuss Buddha-nature.

Is it akin to the "luminous mind" one reads about from the Pali Canon, as in a further elaboration of the same underlying idea?

You have read the Pali Canon?

 

[crossfire]

Let's discuss Buddha-nature.

Is it akin to the "luminous mind" one reads about from the Pali Canon, as in a further elaboration of the same underlying idea?

Buddha Nature, imo, is sentience: having a subjective mind where one can think abstractly. However, having a subjective mind also makes one vulnerable to delusion (confusing the subjective for the objective.) {I see the capacity for delusion as a result of sentience as original sin--your mileage may vary.} Buddha Nature is the capacity for sentient beings to awaken to their capacity for delusion and recognize it for what it is, and to dispel it.

The subjective mind is a double-edged sword--the cure for delusion lies in plugging into the Buddha Nature aspect of awakening.

 

[crossfire]

Let's discuss Buddha-nature.

Is it akin to the "luminous mind" one reads about from the Pali Canon, as in a further elaboration of the same underlying idea?

Yes, in the respect that it clears the mind of defilements/delusions, awakens the being, and leads to development of the mind.
Pahassara Sutta: Luminous

"Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}​

 

[crossfire]

I think we should also talk about hell, as both Christianity and Buddhism share the concept.