Jesus: a zen buddist?

[FilmGuy127]

I was talking to a professor of religious studies once who told me that if you look at the teachings and pratices of Jesus there are many similarities and parallels with the zen form of buddism. Unfortunately, I didn't have time for him to explain this theory in detail so I was wondering if anyone else has heard this before or knows something about zen buddism and can see the similarities or not.

[jezic]

there are. It "could' have been possible in the missing years is the usual argument, however while possible it is not always probable.

There are similarities which are interesting. Some deal with moral truth which is held to be written on the soul and so that would not be so difficult to fathom that they are similar. Other stuff, well i will have to ask him about it one day.

[Socrates]

[quote name='FilmGuy127' date='Jun 27 2005, 09:36 PM']I was talking to a professor of religious studies once who told me that if you look at the teachings and pratices of Jesus there are many similarities and parallels with the zen form of buddism. Unfortunately, I didn't have time for him to explain this theory in detail so I was wondering if anyone else has heard this before or knows something about zen buddism and can see the similarities or not.
[right][snapback]625838[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There's certainly nothing in the Gospels or historical evidence to suggest that. The similarities exist mostly in these people's imaginations (or are so vague as to be meaningless - such as "Both Jesus and Buddhism teach the importance of the spiritual")

Edited June 28, 2005 by Socrates

[FilmGuy127]

thats what im talking about... similarity in belief. not that he was a buddist.

[Guest JeffCR07]

There are, as some people have noted, vague and general similarities (as there are in any comparison of two religions). Even if Zen Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, Theravada Buddhism, etc, contain only very small portions of the truth, those bits of the Truth will be in line with and "similar to" the teachings of Christ.

I am reading a book right now called The Jesus Sutras about the early christian church in China. The authors commentary is absolutely horrendous, but it is interesting to see how Christianity melds and blends with Taoism and Buddhism to an almost unrecognizable degree when it is not anchored to the Magisterium of the Church and the Papacy.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='FilmGuy127' date='Jun 27 2005, 09:36 PM']I was talking to a professor of religious studies once who told me that if you look at the teachings and pratices of Jesus there are many similarities and parallels with the zen form of buddism. Unfortunately, I didn't have time for him to explain this theory in detail so I was wondering if anyone else has heard this before or knows something about zen buddism and can see the similarities or not.
[right][snapback]625838[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think you might be confused with Pure Land buddhism than Zen.Pure Land(very messianic in nature, afterlife) tends to be more in line with Christianity than Zen does and other forms of buddhism . I've heard of legends of a man who some attriubute to being christ that came to the east and taught there. Some claim that the teachings were just retransmitted as the words of the Buddha. The person was burried in a tomb called the Roza Bal, I believe. Ofcourse if this is true, than it contradicts the whole ressurection thing. Its just another interesting legend people choose to believe.

[FilmGuy127]

Hmm, very interesting.

The professor was fairly clear that it was zen... and i dont believe that he ment there were similarites between catholism and buddism... He spoke of similarites in the way that Jesus chose to live and the way the buddists do... so I don't know.

My question now is... does anybody know enough about both to provide a breakdown on the two? I could look up the buddism on the net but i dont really trust it that much and i dont know any buddists or religious studies people where i am.

[Mikhail]

The interconnectedness of religions is very interesting. Jesus was a Buddha, if you understand the true meaning of the word (one who is awake or enlightened). While Buddhuism today is nothing like the original religion that the Buddha set up, the parrallels between the teachings of the Buddha and Lao Tzu for instance, and the teachings of Jesus, are amazing. They are so similar, that one could conclude that they were prophets of God. One must realize that both these men were alive long before Jesus. Buddhuism is a religion, however, the way of the Buddha and the Taoist way are not. Following the middle way. Tao, roughly translated means word. When you translate the bible into Chinese for instance, it says, "In the beginning was the Tao and the Tao was with God and the Tao was God...." etc. To be a Taoist is not to be a religious person. However, one can be a Christian (and a Catholic) and a Taoist at the same time. There is nothing in the Tao Te Ching that goes against Christianity, and it's like a supplement to your life. Just like any other philisophical teaching.

[Mikhail]

Although I might add, one cannot be a Buddhuist and a Christian, not a modern Buddhuist anyway. One can study and follow the teachings of the Buddhu, however.

[Socrates]

[quote name='FilmGuy127' date='Jun 28 2005, 07:40 PM']Hmm, very interesting.

The professor was fairly clear that it was zen... and i dont believe that he ment there were similarites between catholism and buddism... He spoke of similarites in the way that Jesus chose to live and the way the buddists do...  so I don't know.

My question now is... does anybody know enough about both to provide a breakdown on the two? I could look up the buddism on the net but i dont really trust it that much and i dont know any buddists or religious studies people where i am.
[right][snapback]626796[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Here's an article on this subject: [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea3.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103fea3.asp[/url]

[kdewolf2]

Here's another article:

[url="http://www.island-of-freedom.com/siddhartha.htm"]http://www.island-of-freedom.com/siddhartha.htm[/url]

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jun 28 2005, 07:55 PM']The interconnectedness of religions is very interesting. Jesus was a Buddha, if you understand the true meaning of the word (one who is awake or enlightened). While Buddhuism today is nothing like the original religion that the Buddha set up, the parrallels between the teachings of the Buddha and Lao Tzu for instance, and the teachings of Jesus, are amazing. They are so similar, that one could conclude that they were prophets of God. One must realize that both these men were alive long before Jesus. Buddhuism is a religion, however, the way of the Buddha and the Taoist way are not. Following the middle way. Tao, roughly translated means word. When you translate the bible into Chinese for instance, it says, "In the beginning was the Tao and the Tao was with God and the Tao was God...." etc. To be a Taoist is not to be a religious person. However, one can be a Christian (and a Catholic) and a Taoist at the same time. There is nothing in the Tao Te Ching that goes against Christianity, and it's like a supplement to your life. Just like any other philisophical teaching.
[right][snapback]626813[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would take acception to a couple things in the above:

The Tao Te Ching [i]does[/i] contain a number of things that cannot be reconciled with Christian/Catholic thought. The doctrine of the harmony of opposites is intrinsically opposed to the Christian teaching on evil, for Lao Tzu teaches [quote]Since the world points up beauty as such,
There is ugliness too.
If goodness is taken as goodness,
Wickedness enters as well.
For is and is-not come together;
Hard and easy are complementary;
Long and short are relative;
High and low are comparative;
Pitch and sound make harmony;
Before and after are a sequence.[/quote]

Moreover, [i]wu wie[/i], or the doctrine of no-action, cannot be reconciled with Christianity, for we hold that the World itself (and therefore all of Nature) was affected by Original Sin.

Also, while Tao is the word used, it is not a perfect translation by any means. Logos was an eternally active principle, while the Way is actionless-with-action.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Jun 28 2005, 07:56 PM']Although I might add, one cannot be a Buddhuist and a Christian, not a modern Buddhuist anyway. One can study and follow the teachings of the Buddhu, however.
[right][snapback]626814[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

...I was under the impression that Buddhism was not a religion but a philosophy, at least one of my friends who's catholic tell me as much and that Buddhist philosophy is not opposed to Catholic beliefs, but then again, he also lives with his gay lover, so, hmm, maybe I should question my sources-haha!

[photosynthesis]

what is the sound of one hand clapping?

[jezic]

part of it is a philosophy. That would be more akin to the idea presented here of the ancient buddhist way and the original teachings. Today it is different.

You can follow a buddhist philosophy on most points and still be Catholic and Christian; however, a follower of the modern tradition could not be both.

[Socrates]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 29 2005, 01:50 PM']part of it is a philosophy. That would be more akin to the idea presented here of the ancient buddhist way and the original teachings. Today it is different.

You can follow a buddhist philosophy on most points and still be Catholic and Christian; however, a follower of the modern tradition could not be both.
[right][snapback]627594[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Buddhism is built on Hindu ideas, and as such is incompatable with the Catholic Faith. It teaches the ultimate non-existence of reality, and teaches a way to escape from existence and individualtiy, rather than to spend eternity with Our Lord and Creator.

Christianity and Buddhism differ on the fundamental nature of reality!

[Guest JeffCR07]

As I said above, there are a number of central tenants of Taoism and Buddhism that are incompatable with Christian thought.

Semperviva, Taoism is more like a philosophy than Buddhism, however, there are philosophical and religious elements in each.

While my above post focused more on the fundamental inconsistencies in Taoism, there are Buddhist doctrines, such as the Doctrine of No-Self, that are totally inconsistent as well.

If you "take out" any of these essential elements, then you are no longer following Buddhist/Taoist philosophy. As such, one can have a (Taoist/Buddhist)-like spirituality that focuses very much on detatchment from worldly things, but this would not be the same as practicing Buddhism or Taoism.

One cannot practice Buddhism or Taoism and remain fundamentally Christian. The Da Qin Luminous Religioun in China clearly shows this, as does their scripture, the Jesus Sutras.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 29 2005, 01:56 PM']Buddhism is built on Hindu ideas, and as such is incompatable with the Catholic Faith.  It teaches the ultimate non-existence of reality, and teaches a way to escape from existence and individualtiy, rather than to spend eternity with Our Lord and Creator.

Christianity and Buddhism differ on the fundamental nature of reality!
[right][snapback]627601[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You are correct to note that Buddhism is built on Hinduism, but Buddhism does not teach the non-existence of reality. You may be confusing this notion with the Doctrine of No-Self.

[Semperviva]

[i]the Jesus Sutras!?!?[/i]

...what do they believe about Christ?

[Socrates]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 29 2005, 02:01 PM']You are correct to note that Buddhism is built on Hinduism, but Buddhism does not teach the non-existence of reality. You may be confusing this notion with the Doctrine of No-Self.
[right][snapback]627610[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm really not an expert on Buddhism or Hinduism. But don't they both teach that existance as we know it is an illusion from which we must escape to become enlightened, and that Nirvana is a destruction of individuality?

In any case, it seems that their fundamental idea of the nature of reality is quite different from the Christian idea. Perhaps you could clarify.