What is the difference?

[grace24]

I'm curious what distinguish Christianity from Buddhism? Things like sin, salvation, grace, etc. Apparently no Buddhist believes in such thing. They believe in karma and hope that their "good" works will get them saved and reincarnate in the next life. So why does that make them and Christians different? And what are the theological differences? You may discuss, thank you.

 

[Dark_Lite]

A big difference between Buddhism and most (Western) religions is the idea of self. Most forms of Buddhism are fundamentally against the nature of self, whereas many Western(ized) religions embrace or promote the idea of self.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Most (?) forms of Buddhism imply that the ability to escape suffering or dissatisfaction with life is one's own, and can be achieved, for instance, through meditation and understanding the nature of one's existence. In contrast, Christianity (and Pure Land Buddhism) rely on a notion of god/buddha-given grace.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[vajradhara]

I'm curious what distinguish Christianity from Buddhism?

the clothes.

metta,

~v

 

[Tariki]

I'm curious what distinguish Christianity from Buddhism? Things like sin, salvation, grace, etc. Apparently no Buddhist believes in such thing. They believe in karma and hope that their "good" works will get them saved and reincarnate in the next life. So why does that make them and Christians different? And what are the theological differences? You may discuss, thank you.

Grace, there is really no simple answer to this. What is to be compared to what?

There is in Christianity the Roman Catholic Church (with liberals, conservatives etc etc), then the Eastern Orthodox, then the various Protestant flavours. One can claim that they are all "united in Christ" yet when the understanding of "Christ" within each is heard, such "unity" appears more a theory than actual practice.

Buddhism is much the same. It is not one monolithic teaching that has remained constant for 2500 years. There is Theravada (which sees the Buddha more as a "teacher"........"Buddha's only point the way, each has to walk the path themselves"), then there is - broadly speaking - the Mahayana (the Great Path) which - very much like the Protestant movement - has broadened out into various flavours.

In my own seeking - in "fear and trembling".... - I have found that there is much resemblance in experience and understanding between a Christian who knows of and studies and seeks to love Christ via the insights of the Christian mystics such as Eckhart and St John of the Cross, and those of the Buddhist Ch'an (Zen) tradition, which is one of the Mahayana flavours of the Dharma.

There is also much to reflect upon between the Pure Land expression of the Dharma (which indeed speaks, for all intents and purposes, of grace and salvation by "other power") and certain Protestant expressions of the Christian Faith.

Others, obviously, see them as antagonistic towards each other. Such is life!

I would just say that Dark_Lite has hit the nail on the head, with the reference to the anatta (not-self) teaching of Buddhism. This is what gives the Dharma its distinctive flavour, which unites all Buddhists, as in theory faith in "Christ" unites all Christians. It has been said that any failure to understand this teaching means it is impossible to truly grasp just what Buddhism is all about.

Possibly the "emptying of Christ" (kenosis) and the anatta teaching of Buddhism have affinities; at the very least, for those like the Trappist monk Thomas Merton and the "zen man" D T Suzuki, the two "ideas" (if one should indeed refer to them as "ideas") do open up possibilites of genuine dialogue between the two faiths. Merton has spoken of Suzuki as a "brother", and that he gave, when meeting him in the flesh, evidence of a value that is self-evident, this irrespective of certain doctrines that "cannot help but appear exotic" to western eyes and ears.

Perhaps that is enough for now.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

They believe in karma and hope that their "good" works will get them saved and reincarnate in the next life.

That is a misrepresentation of Buddhism, to say the least.
Buddhist sources make it abundantly clear that there is no permanent "self" travelling from incarnation to incarnation. Instead, one dissolving stream of consciousness basically gives rise to another, the way a flame might be passed on from one guttering candle to a new one.

And that is not something to be desired, let alone work towards. Quite the contrary: Buddhist practice is aimed at breaking the cycle; when ignorance is uprooted, rebirth ceases.

As for "good works": Buddhism is not about placating some authority, who then hands out rewards (or punishes those who displease him). Instead, Buddhist practice is aimed at cultivating mindfulness, eliminating ignorance and "unskilled" behaviour.

 

[LWB]

I don't see much distinction at all at the mystical level of understanding. As each teaching is corrupted by the culture of its setting, it becomes twisted to suit the prejudices of the people, and the hierarchies that set to profit off them.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

One could say that Christianity has a salvific factor to its goals, whereas Buddhism has a liberating factor to its goals. Heaven is a state of salvation, albeit it can be argued, and has, to be a state for even a believer before they die, but one can observe that it is centered on something outside oneself altering you internally in a spiritual sense.

Nirvana is a state of liberation, focused inwardly primarily, with any recognition of things outside yourself being interconnected with yourself in some sense, though not necessarily the same fundamental substance absolutely, but related in that way as energy/matter perhaps. Your spiritual internal alteration does not come from without, but from within.

Christianity, if I understand it even moderately, suggests that humans cannot will to seek out God in the ultimate sense, but have to be nudged in the right direction by God's grace. In contrast, Buddhism says that you yourself are motivated by your experience and psychology, though there is a similar sort of paradigm change as in Christianity that occurs in Buddhism in your transition to being what is called a stream enterer or arhat. And probably an even greater psychological change as you become "enlightened"

This is just a start, mind you. And mostly on fundamental ideas.

 

[salida]

Christianity versus buddism
http://www.gospelway.com/religiousgroups/buddhism.php

Christian concept, Are you a good person? www.livingwaters.com/good/
Can you keep the 10 commandments 100% of the time all the time? So, have you ever lied or steal something or break any of these commandments once in your life? If the answer is yes-than you are guilty.
Only Jesus did kept these.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I thought Christianity asked whether you were righteous before God? Being a good person was always emphasized to me later in life to be ineffective to accomplishing the goal of salvation through God.

In short, you seem to have your stereotypes reversed. Wouldn't Buddhism, by your standards, be the one that asks that question truly. Christianity asking if you are a good person is a rhetorical question.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Christianity versus buddism
http://www.gospelway.com/religiousgroups/buddhism.php

Christian concept, Are you a good person? www.livingwaters.com/good/
Can you keep the 10 commandments 100% of the time all the time? So, have you ever lied or steal something or break any of these commandments once in your life? If the answer is yes-than you are guilty.
Only Jesus did kept these.

This is just wrong on so many levels. Honestly.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I thought Christianity asked whether you were righteous before God? Being a good person was always emphasized to me later in life to be ineffective to accomplishing the goal of salvation through God.

Yes and no. There will be different sorts of explanations based on the theological tradition a given Christian identifies with and is a part of. What I think most Christians could agree with is that all the good works in the world cannot on their own help us before God because:

A) God, in Christian thought, isn't some Being up in heaven with a pair of scales weighing the good and bad of each person and rewarding/punishing us accordingly; rather God is seen as a loving, proactive Father, a God of ultimate love whose justice is ultimately revealed in grace and mercy, saving sinners and reconciling an estranged world to Himself in love.

B) Ultimately the problem of sin can never be overcome by self-effort, it's so deeply entrenched in us as human persons that even among our best efforts the basic brokenness of our condition manifests itself; thus at the root is the ultimate need for grace--God's self-condescension to meet us and accept us, love us, justify us and restore and reconcile us with Himself and each other by forgiving us and inviting us into a life of forgiveness and reconciliation by means of having restored communion with Him.

C) Possibly just an extension/expansion on the above point. The chief goal in Christianity, though this is often overshadowed by populist talk of "going to Heaven" is actually communion with God. God's chief interest and concern for us is not that we figure out the "right way" and do it on our own, but that we be reconciled to Him and one another, thereby being restored to the only true source of real living and real life (God Himself) out of which good works can abundantly flourish because He is the source of all truly good works.

Where Christians disagree typically has to do on to what degree good works contribute to our condition, not by means of "earning" God's favor or "earning" reward in the hereafter; but to what degree such works provide sustenance to our restored and reconciled life; and what effect they may or may not have in our communion with God.

-CryptoLutheran

In short, you seem to have your stereotypes reversed. Wouldn't Buddhism, by your standards, be the one that asks that question truly. Christianity asking if you are a good person is a rhetorical question.