The similarities between Buddhism and Hindusm and the vast difference between Christianity

BeachHouseGuy

How is it that Hinduism and Buddhist practice are so similar, and yet, Christianity and Jewish practice is so different... The main thing I noticed was ridding yourself of worldly attachments in the eastern philosophy, why is this so central and key, yet it is not talked about in the western philosophy being mainly Christianity?

Jeffrey

It is talked about in Christianity. Read eclesiastics. "all is vanity" ~eclesiastic

shanyin

Also Jesus Christ told someone to sell his possessions and follow him completely.

aura

The recorded words of Jesus of Nazareth on the subject of attachment are his "Sermon on the Mount." It would seem you have possibly never heard of it.
You might look it up sometime. It is very much in keeping with the teachings of Buddhism.

SattvaPaul

There is a (very plausible) theory about Jesus having been in a India. We discussed some if it in different thread.

Read up about the roots of Dharmic & Abrahamic religions.

shanyin

If you're interested in what sattvapaul is talking about I recommend "The Lost Years of Jesus" (book).

For the sake of if you're skeptical the evidence is based on is 4 eye witness accounts.

compassionate_warrior

For the sake of if you're skeptical the evidence is based on is 4 eye witness accounts.

I haven't read this book, though I've seen the film, "Jesus In India". Could you tell us who the eye witnesses were?

SattvaPaul

The recorded words of Jesus of Nazareth on the subject of attachment are his "Sermon on the Mount." It would seem you have possibly never heard of it.
You might look it up sometime. It is very much in keeping with the teachings of Buddhism.

I've read an account of a Japanese Zen master who said, after someone read the Sermon on the Mount to him, something like "I don't know who this man Jesus was, but this is one of the best teachings of Dharma I have heard".

stavros388

Even though modern western Christianity doesn't seem to promote renunciation, Eastern Orthodox Christianity very much does. And Jesus most certainly promoted it when he told his followers to sell all they have and give it to the poor, to lose their lives in order to gain life, to serve God and not money, to be in the world and not of the world, to refrain from putting their faith in things that decay, and so on. Google "Mount Athos", for instance, if you want to learn about Christians giving up worldly attachments. Also if you look at the actual practices of traditional and monastic Christianity, they aren't that different from Buddhist and Hindu practices after all. The Greek word "nepsis" means watchfulness and is one of the main practices of Hesychasm (the Orthodox tradition of stillness). Saying "The Jesus Prayer" is very similar to saying the Nembetsu or some other Buddhist or Hindu mantra or prayer, for instance. Praying for others acts on the person praying in much the same way that metta meditation does, I would suggest. Monks and nuns eat very sparingly and wear simple clothes, following spiritual regimens as difficult and stringent as those followed by Buddhist monastics. And so on. But yeah, the pop Christianity that is overwhelmingly represented in the West is pretty watered down and in many ways antithetical to the apostolic tradition.

BeachHouseGuy

Yet is it central? no..

aura

Yet is it central? no..

If the words and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are not the central teachings and practices of any given religion/philosophical tradition, why would anyone designate that particular tradition as "Christian"?

BeachHouseGuy

I guess what I'm really wondering is why is there one decision in relgious choice- ridding yourself of attachments, the Central focus of one. And the other, a small chapter in the religious way, not central at all. The interesting thing here is, what kind of result is given?

person

My guess is that christianity was co-opted for political purposes early on and that changed its flavor.

Dakini

I think it comes down to how people follow the religion. when we think of Buddhism, we think of renunciation, and therefore--monks. But most Buddhists don't renounce anything. And look at the abbots of monasteries and other high lamas--they lived surrounded by luxury. The Tibetan government's ministers and other officials live very well. On another thread, someone said some Zen masters charge a lot for teachings, and buy "bling" and live high on the hog. Householder practitioners of Buddhism don't practice renunciation, and they're in the majority. Christian monks do practice renunciation. We're picking opposing segments in the population of each religion as our stereotyped view, that's why they seem so different. But compare apples to apples, and suddenly the similarities are much more clear.

Jeffrey

Dakini, thats not always true. Luxary. My lama doesn't even have a computer. The staff are not paid much if anything. Her teacher doesn't own anything at all from what I understand, though he is provided for by the sangha.

Dakini

I wasn't saying all lamas are like that. There are some into it for the fame and money (look at Trungpa and his son who leads Shambhala). Tulkus generally lived well--I should have said "tulkus" instead of lamas. And Hinduism--Rajneesh, and others.

The point was simply that the impression we get of a religion is often based on our observations of how its followers put the religion into practice. Some follow the humility and renunciation teachings, others don't. That's true in all religions. Humans are human, not all overcome their attachments, in spite of their religions teachings on that score. Whether they're supposed to be renuniates or are lay followers.

But compare most Buddhist monks to most Christian monks, and the similarities between the religions come into sharper focus. Compare householder Buddhists with Christian householders, you'll find a lack of renunciation on both sides. This makes more sense than comparing the monastics of Buddhism to the average Christian.

SattvaPaul

Just as Buddhists can have renunciation which is internal but not necessarily external, the Christians can too:

"“I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.” "

Simonthepilgrim

If you really want to see a difference between Christianity and Buddhism, you may want to ask yourselves where are the Buddhist voices against the austerity measures that the markets are imposing on the poor and vulnerable, or the Buddhist protests against slavery. Although Christianity was, IMO, hijacked by the Roman state (and now the US Imperial state) to maintain social control, the message of Jesus that "put down the mighty from their seats" cannot be entirely suppressed. Right through the history of the Christian churhes, from the earliest days, the mission to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and deny the self (anamkara) has been carried out. Of course, it is easy to point to the evil actions of some Christian men and women, and the way in which the clerical institutions have been so self-protecting. The same can be said about abuses in some Buddhist sanghas.

We have a great deal to learn from each other, brother and sister human beings, but we will fail to learn anything if we approach each other with anger or opposition in our hearts.

shanyin

For the sake of if you're skeptical the evidence is based on is 4 eye witness accounts.

I haven't read this book, though I've seen the film, "Jesus In India". Could you tell us who the eye witnesses were?

"Nicolas Notovitch, Swami Abhedananda, Professor Nicholas Roerich, and Mme Elisabeth Caspari"

compassionate_warrior

Thanks, shanyin. I thought you meant written eyewitness accounts of Jesus being in the East. You meant accounts by people who have seen the Hemis Monastery texts. Buying Swami Abhedananda's book is on my "to do" list. I'm well familiar with the Roerich family's translation of the text. I haven't heard of Elisabeth Caspari. Notovich is highly questioned by a lot of people, so I've reserved judgement on his testimony, but I have read his book. I trust the Roerichs completely. I'm enjoying investigating this further. I'll look up Caspari.

There's a claim that the Gospel of Thomas describes a meeting between Jesus and Thomas in the Punjab. I'd like to double-check some of these quotes from Thomas and Philip with Elaine Pagels' analysis. But we're digressing.

@Simonthepilgrim There have been Buddhist voices supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement. There was a post earlier quoting Roshi Joan Halifax, an essay she wrote titled, "This Is What Compassion Looks Like". You ask, where are the Buddhist voices against the austerity measures? Where are the Christian voices? Where are religious leaders in general on this and similar issues? I remember some of the Baptist churches and others got involved in the sanctuary movement during the war in Guatemala, that was commendable. But where have they been when those here at home have needed strong advocates? Perhaps clerical socio-political activism doesn't make headlines very often, so it could be we're simply unaware of measures being taken. Feel free to set me straight. I am aware that churches operate soup kitchens. (So do some Buddhist sanghas.) That's different from organizing a campaign to address political leaders on destructive economic decisions.

Simonthepilgrim

@compassionate_warrior

There is nothing in Thomas's Gospel that suggests time or place of the logia. Indeed, there is no biographical detail at all, as I am sure you know from reading it. Any suggestion that it records conversations taking place outside Judaea or the Galilee must surely be speculative.It is your choice if you put your faith in Roerich.

I do not know what the Christian leaders in the US may or may not have said about the economic situation but here, in the UK, the leaders of all the denominations are vocal in their criticism of the Coalition's cuts and the undemocratic way in which they are being applied. Even the Pope has spoken out against the measures being taken across the West. Soup kitchens will not be enough this time. It is time for strong voices like that of the late Dom Helder Camara.

Of course, Buddhism, lacking 'central' authorities, also lacks a platform from which to speak on such matters. It is clear, however, that, historically, the Christian churches have had a long record of social action. Modern Western Buddhism has adopted many of these methods, which were lacking in its more traditional forms.

taiyaki

i'd like to point out that buddhism and hinduism are radically different.
though it might not obvious because they use the same language.
even in buddhism there are radically different view points.

here is an example:

hinduism asserts that all is one, unconditioned, unmanifested, absolute and inherent.

buddhism asserts that all is seperate and independent, yet interdependent, conditioned, and lacking of any inherency.

so the idea of oneness in hinduism is the absolute experience.

in zen we assert oneness, but that is just an experience. if clung to it is a wrong view and a dangerous one.



the main difference in christianity is that mainstream christianity is basically dependent on dogma/belief structures. there are christian monks and small sects that do contemplative meditation, etc. they in essence would find the presence of god and surrender to it. but again it is no different then the objectification of inherency that hinduism asserts.

though the similarities are significant. like the emphasis on compassion, love, joy, connectiveness, selflessness.



but at the end of the day do they suffer? buddhism is about suffering, not god. true freedom comes when there is no more dualistic asserting/clinging. the buddha was the only being who gave a system that both emphasized tranquility meditation and insight meditation, which lead to unbinding.

christianity and hinduism lack this. and is very important that we distingish this. this is not to say they are wrong or we are right, this is just out of respect for all religous traditions. it may seem like the same route or map, but we are all going to different places.

hope this helps.

Simonthepilgrim

.......................... it may seem like the same route or map, but we are all going to different places.

hope this helps.

This where I disagree and think you have it backwards: we may be going by different paths but all will arrive at the same place:
"The paths of glory lead but to the grave."

compassionate_warrior

@Simonthepilgrim Thanks for sharing with us what is going on in the UK. I wish we could do this type of compare-and-contrast more often, being that our membership is multi-national.

Just in case clarification is needed, the interpretation of Thomas I posted about had nothing to do with the Roerichs. I've only begun my investigation of possible hints in Biblical and apocryphal texts relating to Jesus and what happened after the crucifixion. Just out of curiosity, where did you get your copy of the Gospel of Thomas?

Simonthepilgrim

@compassionate_warrior,

I have a few different translations of Thomas. My favourite is by Hugh McGregor Ross who has spent many years studying the text. I first came across it back in the Sixties and have loved it ever since. There are versions on the Net, particularly at
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm

taiyaki

.......................... it may seem like the same route or map, but we are all going to different places.

hope this helps.

This where I disagree and think you have it backwards: we may be going by different paths but all will arrive at the same place:
"The paths of glory lead but to the grave."

death is the end? =]

Dakini

Tai, you're saying Hinduism and Buddhism are radically different, but on an earlier thread, you were saying Buddhism and Vedanta were the same. Is Vedanta not a form of Hinduism?

Jeffrey

There is no such thing as hinduism. That term is a western invention to describe several belief systems, though you could say there is similarity. Thats my understanding at least based on my Indian friend telling me.

Dakini

Interesting that you bring that up so far into the discussion, J. I think most people here know that. I was just trying to clear up Tai's statement that Hindu beliefs are opposite of Buddhism, and yet Vedanta (a Hindu belief system) and Buddhism are the same.

taiyaki

vedanta is different from buddhism.

it does seem the same on surface, but with anatta and emptiness/dependent origination it is a completely different insight.

i believe the realization is the same. whether that realization brings unbinding is another matter. buddhism is all about the ceasation of suffering. vedanta reifies oneness as the absolute and the buddha was directly opposed to this.

if one takes buddhism without anatta and dependent origination then you have vedanta.


i used to believe that they were the same. i was absolutely wrong. they are radically different.

Simonthepilgrim

.......................... it may seem like the same route or map, but we are all going to different places.

hope this helps.

This where I disagree and think you have it backwards: we may be going by different paths but all will arrive at the same place:
"The paths of glory lead but to the grave."

death is the end? =]

Death is a transition that no one escapes and towards which all life leads.

Gui

@taiyaki I find this very interesting and wonder if my current understanding is wrong. Would you mind explaining the similarities and differences between anatta, vedanta, non-duality and "oneness"; however subtle. I don't ask for much, do I? With gratitude, Gui

vedanta is different from buddhism.

it does seem the same on surface, but with anatta and emptiness/dependent origination it is a completely different insight.

i believe the realization is the same. whether that realization brings unbinding is another matter. buddhism is all about the ceasation of suffering. vedanta reifies oneness as the absolute and the buddha was directly opposed to this.

if one takes buddhism without anatta and dependent origination then you have vedanta.


i used to believe that they were the same. i was absolutely wrong. they are radically different.

taiyaki

when one has the "I AM" experience, which is the experience of the watcher. this watcher can also dissolve into presence, which becomes oneness.

the tendency is to reify some metaphysical essence or super awareness. so in venanta the assertion is that oneness is reality and all arises in and from consciousness.

this experience is fine, but it isn't complete, though it may seem complete.

buddhism asserts emptiness and anatta.

anatta can be read about here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

to put simply there isn't a super consciousness/awareness that watches the objects arise and fall. so the common assumption is that a subject or awareness see's a thought arise and fall.

when examine there is only thinking and in thinking just the thought. to assert that there is something behind watching the thoughts is the assumption of duality (subject/object). with the realization of anatta one can see that there is only thinking and thoughts, and no background. There is no mirror being reflected. The thought itself is self luminous, there is no seperation between awareness and thought. not only is the thought self aware, it is spontaneously arisen. there is no inherency. the thought cannot be grasped, locatable in time or space, nor can one find a thought ever. thoughts are only known through inference. just like all subjects are project after the fact.


oneness is just the flavor of presence in all things. it's not to say oneness is invalid, it is correct but it must be viewed from dependent origination/emptiness. seperate yet interdependent arisings based on causes and conditions. thus ungraspable. we cannot say things exist, nor can we say they don't exist. just processes!!



the realization is correct. the insight disecting and deconstructing our inherent tendency to reify and grasp is important. one must actively apply and investigate emptiness and anatta.

this alone leads to nirvana.


if this doesn't make it clear, i can send you some links and such. it's a very subtle, yet profound difference.

one mind, becomes no mind with anatta.

taiyaki

@Gui

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/06/two-kinds-of-bonds.html?m=1