Christianity and Buddhism

I do not believe that Jesus was a Buddhist. Although there are many spiritual similarities between the two religions, there is a lack of historical evidence to prove that this is true. First of all, the central teachings of the Buddha and Jesus are not in agreement. Buddhism teaches that nothing exists in and of itself, every being is dependent on something or someone else. There is also the belief that nirvana can only be achieved by the truly enlightened. Tied to this is the concept of “anatman” or no-self. Jesus on the other hand saw himself as an agent of the coming of the Kingdom of God. As Alice said, “I think Jesus came here only to die and suffer for our sins (Matthew 1:21) as the only son of God.” You can not compare the “Kingdom of Heaven” to nirvana. In order to enter heaven, one has to have a good relationship with God, yet to enter nirvana you have to be detached and impersonal. I do not think this is what Jesus would have wanted his followers to do. Although the two religions differ in many ways, they do agree on the concept of compassion. For Buddhists, compassion for all beings is an important concept. Jesus displays this compassion by doing what he came here to do, during his life and death. In regards to the “miracles” Jesus performed, these are only mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels. In John for example, he never uses the term “miracle.” He refers to Jesus’ work as “signs.” By using the word sign the author of John is stressing the way Jesus’ deeds show who he is, not just what he can do. Compared to the Synoptics, where Jesus refuses to do miracles in order to prove his identity, in John Jesus says “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe (4.48). Therefore, I think Jesus’ “miracles” have to be taken into perspective depending on which gospel you are referring to.

Jesus was Buddhist

When we talking about Jesus as scripture yesterday in class in reiterated many similarities I see between the life of Jesus and stories of Tibetan Buddhist yogis we have been looking at in Buddhism. I am really interested in ideas of interfaith and find very interesting that Jesus holds true to ideals sought in other religions.

Wandering in the desert for forty days and forty nights is very similar to a yogi's retreat. Jesus had many visions during this time of things that transcended reality. This is very common in the meditation of yogis. Jesus also had the ability to perform miracles and transcend reality. There are many stories about yogis who left behind footprints or body impressions during their meditations, as well as yogis who were able to perform other miracles.

Jesus also becomes the prime moral example like many yogis. His value on compassion and turning the other cheek ring very true for Buddhists.

The exception is that yogis take disciples and teach their advanced practices to younger generations. Looking at that as an example, I wonder did the historical Jesus want us to worship him as the exemplary or did he intend to create a new tradition of Christian yogis?

Writing Style

I have found that the writing style of the New Testament is very different than that of the Old Testament, I don't know if anyone else has found this to be true? It keep feeling as though I'm reading a contemporary story instead of an extremely old text. This could be attributed to the translation of the text but it just seems to flow differently than the old testament. The old testament read slightly slower and kept having a genealogical element to it that the new testament does not have. Does the mean that the teachings of Jesus valued less one's family history than the Jews did? I have found that that main family references are that Jesus is the son of God and thats about it. Does the difference in writing style have anything to do with trying to stray away from the Jewish text and to try and differentiate it? Or is it just the time that it was written in and this is the style?

New Testament: Primary or Secondary Scripture?

Is the New Testament a "primary" or "secondary" Scripture, according to William Graham's distinction in his article on Scripture in the Encyclopedia of Religion? I ask because the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament seem nearly always to be interpreting something else. Sometimes it's interpreting passages from the Hebrew Bible, like the verses from Isaiah in Mk 4:12ff, or the Exodus story of the manna, the "bread from heaven" in John 6. Or more often than not, it's interpreting the sayings and biography of Jesus. In that sense, it seems that the sayings of Jesus (and his actions) are an "oral scripture" which the NT painstakingly preserves, interprets, and otherwise "relates to" as Scripture. And it treats the "Old Testament" verses as scripture by quoting them as prooftexts, or prophetic promises that are fulfilled in the life of Jesus. Jesus' sayings and actions become a sort of interpretative key for understanding the "true meaning" of the Old Testament - namely, that it's always referring to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. So what exactly is Christian Scripture: the Old Testament, the New Testament, or in a sense, the dynamic personality of Jesus Christ himself? Or is it better to say that these are Christian Scriptures only when they're taken together, sort of like the Written and Oral Torahs of rabbinic Judaism? It that's the case, is it correct or even helpful to describe them as primary and secondary scriptures with respect to one other, and if so which is which to which? Finally, if Jesus' dynamic personality can be considered a sort of "Scripture" in terms of the way it functions in a Christian religious worldview, what advantage might that be over scripture as a written text?