Buddhism and Christianity - do they differ?

BabyRain · Jun 29, 2007

I will post two articles today.

One written by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon entitled Buddhism vs. Christianity

In an era pregnant with tolerance for everything, some Christians have embraced Buddhism while numerous attempts have been made to "unify" Buddhism and Christianity by ecumenically minded members of both faiths. Friendly Buddhist and Christian encounters are the vogue on some university campuses. Through no fault of its own, however, "Christianity" is frequently the loser in such encounters. Thus, mainline Christians, who have no real comprehension of biblical Christianity but are fascinated by the alluring or mystical nature of Buddhist metaphysics, may leave their "faith" and become Buddhists. Or, they may maintain a rather odd mixture of both religions, one that is ultimately unfaithful to both. On the other hand, Buddhists who "accept" Christianity merely redefine it into their own Buddhism. Professor of Buddhism and Japanese Studies at Tokyo and Harvard Universities respectively, Masaharu Anesaki illustrates this by his assimilation of Jesus with the Buddha:

In short, we Buddhists are ready to accept Christianity; nay, more, our faith in Buddha is faith in Christ. We see Christ because we see Buddha.... We can hope not in vain for the second advent of Christ [that is] the appearance of the [prophesied] future Buddha Metteya. 16 (italics in original)

Nevertheless, rather than seeking a "unity" among these religions, the truth is much closer to the gut feeling of Zen Buddhist D.T. Suzuki, who states, as he undoubtedly reflects upon the Buddhist concept of suffering: "Whenever I see a crucified figure of Christ, I cannot help thinking of the gap that lies deep between Christianity and Buddhism." 17

The truth is that purported similarities between Buddhism and Christianity are only apparent or surface. For example, many have claimed a similarity between Jesus Christ’s saving role in Christianity and the Bodhisattva’s savior role as given in later Buddhism. But these roles are entirely contradictory. In Christianity, "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). This means He saves us from the penalty of our sins by taking God’s judgment of sin in His own Person. Jesus paid the penalty of sin (death) for sinners by dying in their place. Thus, He offers a free gift of salvation to anyone simply for believing and accepting what He has done on their behalf (Jn. 3:16). The central ideas involved in Christ’s saving role—God’s holiness, propitiatory atonement, forgiveness of sin, salvation as a free gift of God’s grace through faith in Christ, etc., are all foreign to Buddhism.

The Bodhisattva’s role of savior is thus entirely different than that of Christ’s. The Bodhisattva has no concern with sin in an ultimate sense, only with the end of suffering. He has no concept of God’s wrath against sin or the need for a propitiatory atonement. He has no belief in an infinite personal God who created men and women in His image. He has no belief in a loving God who freely forgives sinners. His only sacrifice is his postponement of entering nirvana so that he can help others find Buddhist enlightenment. Having achieved self-perfection, the Bodhisattva could freely enter nirvana at death. Instead, he chooses to reincarnate again to help others attain their own self-perfection and nirvana more quickly.

Thus, those who argue there is an essential similarity between Buddhist and Christian concepts of savior are wrong. In fact, at their core, Buddhism and Christianity are irreconcilable, as far removed as the East and West. Indeed, virtually every major Christian doctrine is denied in Buddhism and vice versa. We would therefore suggest that a merging of the two traditions results in a disservice to both.

For their part, Buddhists have long recognized the differences between the two faiths. The knowledgeable Buddhist is aware that the doctrines and teachings of biblical Christianity are an enemy rather than a friend, for Christian faith openly teaches those things which Buddhists reject as mere ignorance and/or as spiritual hindrances; further Christianity openly opposes those things which Buddhism endorses an essential for genuine enlightenment.

For example, Christianity is interwoven with the monotheistic grandeur of an infinite, personal God (Jn. 17:3; Isa. 43:10-11, 44:6); Buddhism is agnostic and practically speaking, atheistic (or in later form, polytheistic).

In Christianity, its central teaching involves the absolute necessity for belief in Jesus Christ as personal Savior from sin (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; I Tim. 2:5-6); Buddhism has no Savior from sin and even in the Mahayana tradition, as we have seen, the savior concepts are quite dissimilar.

Christianity stresses salvation by grace through faith alone (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:8-9); Buddhism stresses enlightenment by works through meditative practices that seek the alleviation of "ignorance" and desire.

Christianity promises forgiveness of all sin now (Col. 2:13; Eph. 1:7) and the eventual elimination of sin and suffering for all eternity (Rev. 21:3-4). On the other hand, Buddhism, since it holds there is no God to offend, promises not the forgiveness and eradication of sin, but rather the elimination of suffering (eventually) and the ultimate eradication of the individual.

Wherever we look philosophically, we see the contrasts between these faiths. Christianity stresses salvation from sin, not from life itself (1 Jn. 2:2). Christianity exalts personal existence as innately good, since man was created in God’s image, and promises eternal life and fellowship with a personal God (Gen. 1:26, 31; Rev. 21:3-4). Christianity has a distinctly defined teaching in the afterlife (heaven or hell, e.g., Mt. 25:46; Rev. 20:10-15). It promises eternal immortality for man as man—but perfected in every way (Rev. 21:3-4).

On the other hand, Buddhism teaches reincarnation, and has only a mercurial nirvana wherein man no longer remains man or, where, in Mahayana, there exists temporary heavens or hells and the final "deification" of "man" through a merging with the ultimate pantheistic-cosmic Buddha nature. But Christianity denies that reincarnation is a valid belief, based on the fact of Christ’s propitiatory atonement for sin. In other words, if Christ died to forgive all sin, there is no reason for a person to pay the penalty for their own sin ("karma") over many lifetimes (Col. 2:13; Heb. 9:27; 10:10, 14; Eph. 1:7).

Consider further contrasts. Biblical Christianity rejects pagan mysticism and all occultism (e.g., Deut. 18:9-12); Buddhism accepts or actively endorses them.

In Christianity life itself is good and given honor and meaning; in Buddhism one finds it difficult to deny that life is ultimately not worth living—for life and suffering are inseparable. Thus, in Christianity, Jesus Christ came that men "might have life and have it more abundantly" (Jn. 10:10); in Buddhism, Buddha came that men might simply rid themselves of personal existence.

In Christianity, God will either glorify or punish the spirit of man (Jn. 5:28-29); in Buddhism no spirit exists to be glorified or punished. In Christianity, absolute morality is a central theme (Eph. 1:4), in Buddhism it is secondary or peripheral.

Buddhism is essentially humanistic, stressing man’s self-achievement. Christianity is essentially theistic, stressing God’s self-revelation and gracious initiative on behalf of man’s helpless moral and spiritual condition. Thus, in Buddhism man alone is the author of salvation; Christianity sees this as an absolute impossibility because innately, man has no power to save himself (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).

We could go on, but suffice it to say the form of romantic humanism that inspires liberal religionists to see basic similarities in the two faiths is no more than wishful thinking. It is not utterly surprising, however, that Western religious humanists would promote Buddhism, for in both systems man is the measure of all things (a god of sorts), even if in the latter the end result is a form of personal self- annihilation. But to the extent both are humanistic, they compass the antithesis of Christianity, whose goal is to glorify God and not man (Jer. 17:5; Jude 24-25).

As far as knowing and glorifying God is concerned, this is unimportant and irrelevant to Buddhists. But biblically, to the extent God is ignored or opposed, to that extent man must correspondingly suffer. Here we see the ultimate irony of Buddhism: in ignoring God, Buddhists feel they can escape suffering; in fact this will only perpetuate it forever. This is the real tragedy of Buddhism, especially of so-called Christian Buddhism. The very means to escape suffering (true faith in the biblical Christ) is rejected in favor of a self-salvation which can only result in eternal suffering (Mt. 25:46; Rev. 20:10-15).
Click to expand...

As you probably can see, this article is written by pro-Christians Biased, if I may say so.

I even find some erroneous information on Buddhism, particularly this phrase: "On the other hand, Buddhism teaches reincarnation, and has only a mercurial nirvana wherein man no longer remains man or, where, in Mahayana, there exists temporary heavens or hells and the final "deification" of "man" through a merging with the ultimate pantheistic-cosmic Buddha nature."

There is no temporary heaven(s) or hell(s) in Buddhism as I have stated in the Concept of Reincarnation thread.

And "Consider further contrasts. Biblical Christianity rejects pagan mysticism and all occultism (e.g., Deut. 18:9-12); Buddhism accepts or actively endorses them"

Hmm, if whatever you term as our natural spiritual abilities such as astral travelling, clairvoyance and telepathic which were lost to mankind due to our own greed, misuse and abuse of the 'powers', then I guess you can say that Buddhism actively endorses them to search for our 'lost' abilities.

I can see this article being applaused by apollon, M_g and a few others highlighting the differences between Christianity and Buddhism, and I am not surprised. As the above points are often the points brought up by Christians, emphasizing and enhancing the gap instead of trying to bridge it.

This article highlighted the TECHNICALITIES of the afterlife (consequences) to emphasize the gap, instead of the TEACHINGS between these two religions/beliefs. The beauty of Christianity is often lost when you only highlight the technicalities of Hell/Heaven to a non-believer. What about Jesus' teachings? Of good and bad? What does He say about being a person with good morals?

I am going to post ANOTHER article, this time written by a BUDDHIST, Sister Ajahn Candasiri.

Christ and Buddha: Jesus Through Buddhist Eyes
By Sister Ajahn Candasiri

Ajahn Candasiri is a senior nun at the Amaravati Buddhist Monastery in Hertfordshire

Christ and Buddha: Jesus Through Buddhist Eyes

His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, speaking to a capacity audience in the Albert Hall in 1984 united his listeners instantly with one simple statement: "All beings want to be happy; they want to avoid pain and suffering." I was impressed at how he was able to touch what we share as human beings. He affirmed our common humanity, without in any way dismissing the obvious differences.

When invited to look at 'Jesus through Buddhist eyes', I had imagined that I would use a 'compare and contrast' approach, rather like a school essay. I was brought up as a Christian and turned to Buddhism in my early thirties, so of course I have ideas about both traditions: the one I grew up in and turned aside from, and the one I adopted and continue to practise within. But after re-reading some of the gospel stories, I would like to meet Jesus again with fresh eyes, and to examine the extent to which he and the Buddha were in fact offering the same guidance, even though the traditions of Christianity and Buddhism can appear in the surface to be rather different.

To start with - a little about how I came to be a Buddhist nun.

Having tried with sincerity to approach my Christian journey in a way that was meaningful within the context of everyday life, I had reached a point of deep weariness and despair. I was weary with the apparent complexity of it all; despair had arisen because I was not able to find any way of working with the less helpful states that would creep, unbidden, into the mind: the worry, jealousy, grumpiness, and so on.and even positive states could turn around and transform themselves into pride or conceit, which were of course equally unwanted.

Eventually, I met Ajahn Sumedho, an American-born Buddhist monk, who had just arrived in England after training for ten years in Thailand. His teacher was Ajahn Chah, a Thai monk of the Forest Tradition who, in spite of little formal education, won the hearts of a many thousands of people, including a significant number of Westerners. I attended a ten day retreat at Oakenholt Buddhist Centre, near Oxford, and sat in agony on a mat on the floor of the draughty meditation hall, along with about 40 other retreatants of different shapes and sizes. In front of us was Ajahn Sumedho, who presented the teachings and guided us in meditation, with three other monks.

This was a turning point for me. Although the whole experience was extremely tough - both physically and emotionally - I felt hugely encouraged. The teachings were presented in a wonderfully accessible style, and just seemed like ordinary common sense. It didn't occur to me that it was 'Buddhism'. Also, they were immensely practical and as if to prove it, we had, directly in front of us, the professionals - people who had made a commitment to living them out, twenty-four hours a day. I was totally fascinated by those monks: by their robes and shaven heads, and by what I heard of their renunciant lifestyle, with its 227 rules of training. I also saw that they were relaxed and happy - perhaps that was the most remarkable, and indeed slightly puzzling, thing about them.

I felt deeply drawn by the teachings, and by Truth they were pointing to: The acknowledgement that, yes, this life is inherently unsatisfactory, we experience suffering or dis-ease - but there is a Way that can lead us to the ending of this suffering. Also, although the idea was quite shocking to me, I saw within the awakening of interest in being part of a monastic community.

So now, after more than twenty years as a Buddhist nun, what do I find as I encounter Jesus in the gospel stories?

Well, I have to say that he comes across as being much more human than I remember. Although there is much said about him being the son of God, somehow that doesn't seem nearly as significant to me as the fact that he is a person - a man of great presence, enormous energy and compassion, and significant psychic abilities. He also has a great gift for conveying spiritual truth in the form of images, using the most everyday things to illustrate points he wishes to make: bread, fields, corn, salt, children, trees. People don't always understand at once, but are left with an image to ponder. Also he has a mission - to re-open the Way to eternal life; and he's quite uncompromising in his commitment to, as he puts it, 'carrying out his Father's will.'

His ministry is short but eventful. Reading through Mark's account, I feel tired as I imagine the relentless demands on his time and energy. It's a relief to find the occasional reference to him having time alone or with his immediate disciples, and to read how, like us, he at times needs to rest. A story I like very much is of how, after a strenuous day of giving teachings to a vast crowd, he is sound asleep in the boat that is taking them across the sea. His calm in response to the violent storm that arises as he is sleeping I find most helpful when things are turbulent in my own life.

I feel very caught up in the drama of it all; there is one thing after another. People listen to him, love what he has to say (or in some cases are disturbed or angered by it) and are healed. They can't have enough of what he has to share with them. I'm touched by his response to the 4000 people who, having spent three days with him in the desert listening to his teaching, are tired and hungry. Realising this, he uses his gifts to manifest bread and fish for them all to eat.

Jesus dies as a young man. His ministry begins when he is thirty (I would be interested to know more of the spiritual training he undoubtedly received before then), and ends abruptly when he is only thirty-three. Fortunately, before the crucifixion he is able to instruct his immediate disciples in a simple ritual whereby they can re-affirm their link with him and each other (I refer, of course, to the last supper) - thereby providing a central focus of devotion and renewal for his followers, right up to the present time.

I have the impression that he is not particularly interested in converting people to his way of thinking. Rather it's a case of teaching those who are ready; interestingly, often the people who seek him out come from quite depraved or lowly backgrounds. It is quite clear to Jesus that purity is a quality of the heart, not something that comes from unquestioning adherence to a set of rules. His response to the Pharisees when they criticise his disciples for failing to observe the rules of purity around eating expresses this perfectly: 'There is nothing from outside that can defile a man' - and to his disciples he is quite explicit in what happens to food once it has been consumed. 'rather, it is from within the heart that defilements arise.' Unfortunately, he doesn't at this point go on to explain what to do about these.

What we hear of his last hours: the trial, the taunting, the agony and humiliation of being stripped naked and nailed to a cross to die - is an extraordinary account of patient endurance - willingness to bear the unbearable.without any sense of blame or ill will. It reminds me of a simile used by the Buddha to demonstrate the quality of metta, or kindliness, he expected of his disciples: 'Even if robbers were to attack you and saw off your limbs one by one, should you give way to anger, you would not be following my advice. ' A tall order, but one that clearly Jesus fulfills to perfection: 'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.'

Courtesy to http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion
Click to expand...

Now perhaps you can see the difference of this article compared to the first article? How enlightening...-cool

aipeng · Sep 21, 2010

yeah its a big difference.

batman9321 · Dec 18, 2010

One of the big differences between Christianity and Budishism is in christinity we received salvation by faith in Jesus and Buddishism is by doing good deeds on earth( by doing a good deed you will get a point and so, the more deeds the more point)

Dan · Dec 19, 2010

you guys need to find something else than dig this useless thread up

and wtf lol, so all believers get free entrance into heaven, and the rest of us work for it?

sorry but what a load of :wackit:

sometimes im trying to understand how people can just blindly follow something without thinking through it. it's fine if you wish to follow a path, but fuck, think it through intelligently first. if Christianity told you to jump off a cliff for receiving salvation by faith, would you do it?

all im saying is think a bit before you follow claims that have been transferred down by hearsay.

96swong · Feb 4, 2011

Buddhism does not worship a God (that's a start). Sidartha was just an enlightened person.
Buddhism is more philosophical, and Buddhists do not have to fear God or hell, etc etc.

Buddhism and Christianity - do they differ?

BabyRain Doppelgänger of da E.Twin

aipeng Active Member

batman9321 New Member

Dan 8-D

96swong Member