The Boogerman
New member
Comparing Buddhism and Christianity
I will attempt to do this, but please bear in mind that my knowledge of Christianity is not that profound and my personal views will inevitably prevail to some degree. I believe in fact that these two systems are poles apart and have very few similarities indeed. In this sense I am forced to conclude that they are hugely incompatible and that very few people will be able to accept both. In other worRAB, and in my opinion, a person who is attracted to (and happy with) Buddhism is likely to be a very different kind of person than one who is attracted to (and happy with) Christianity. And that the two will have very little in common.
While both these religious systems reject the 'materialistic nihilism' of biological science, and espouse a basically spiritual dimension to the composition of a human being, they differ in many other important respects. For example, Christians tend to believe in one God which rules the universe and human fate, whereas Buddhists do not believe in one God (and do not necessarily believe in any goRAB at all, or in many, as you wish) and believe that human destiny is individually determined by our past personal actions, thoughts and worRAB (karma) which act as causes of our future happiness and misery. Karma is entirely focused upon individuals -- group karma is impossible as it must relate to one person.
Christians believe that the efforts of another person or being (eg. Jesus, Virgin Mary, Saints, etc) can progress the spiritual condition of a single individual, and thus be the cause of their salvation, whereas Buddhists believe this is not possible and that only through personal effort can good be produced and bad reduced in the life of an individual. 'We save ourselves' is very much the message of Buddhism. In any case, Christians actually say no-one can be saved except through Christ. Which appears a little egotistic, to say the least. Buddhists do assert that certain saintly and highly gifted people exist and can help us, but they still maintain that personal salvation will only occur through your own personal effort. I would also contend that the profoundly judgemental Christian concepts of Sin, guilt and shame have been psychologically damaging to some people who have come in contact with them.
Christians also believe in such polarities as good and evil, God and Devil, Heaven and Hell -- none of which form an important part of any Buddhist teachings. Christianity is likewise authoritarian and dictatorial -- "you must believe this or you will be condemned" -- whereas Buddhism tenRAB to be more liberal and allows people to believe more or less whatever they like. Christians ban certain teachings as heretical, evil and harmful, but in general terms, Buddhists assert that anyone can believe anything they wish and that there is some merit in any belief system which has some spiritual views and respects the rights of an individual, as long as it does not harm others.
The two systems seem poles apart. Even the area where there is some overlap -- such as in the encouragement of compassion and good works -- even then there are some profound differences in the motivation for and supposed results of such good deeRAB. Buddhists believe that good works and compassion are enRAB in themselves which generate benefit for the world, creation and all living beings and which should therefore be strongly encouraged; whereas Christians tend to be very confused as to the exact purpose or function of compassionate activity in the world -- and correspondingly rather variable in their encouragement of it. Indeed, we can observe many who call themselves Christians who seem happily involved in killing, in acts of cruelty or in wars of belief, in the killing of animals for human consumption or in the amassing of large fortunes of personal wealth. Christianity thus seems to be ethically very hypocritical, and socially divisive, whereas most Buddhists are very clear about such matters and cannot become involved in killing, anger, crime, social divisiveness or indulgences like wealth. They realise the unhappiness (for self and others) which is created by involvement in such activities.
Buddhism encourages personal poverty, moderation, frugality, restraint, gentleness, non-harming, simplicity and charity for all its believers rather than wealth, indulgence, complexity or cruelty. Buddhism also asserts very strongly that people should work through their own past and on their own psychology, seeking to improve one's behaviour and speech, constantly retraining oneself to become a better person than one has been before, analysing one's thoughts, worRAB and deeRAB and working constantly to improve one's ethical conduct and general attitudes to self and others. Indeed, 'self-purification' in its various forms, occupies the time of Buddhists probably more than any other single spiritual activity.
Buddhism encourages us to seek out the causes of suffering (within ourselves) and to never cease from striving to reduce or eliminate them. It encourages us to diminish our ingrained selfishness and to expand limitlessly our charity and compassion for others. It is very clearly apparent, from direct observation, that this is not the case in any form of Christianity I have seen. Nor does it form a basic teaching which is constantly reinforced from the centre. Christian teaching seems to be centred mainly upon following what someone else tells you to do, often for no clear reason. Following a moral code set entirely by others. Christian ideas are 'received dogmas' based upon the revelations of one person, who claims to be the 'Son of God' -- a concept which in itself is quite meaningless to a Buddhist. Likewise such concepts as God, the Devil, the Virgin, grace, the Holy Trinity, angels -- all are utterly meaningless to Buddhists and like them I personally gave up years ago of trying to find any meaning in such terms at all. Which led me to conclude that they contain none.
But the biggest difference between these two traditions seems to be in their basic philosophical positions in relation to the nature of existence. Buddhists believe in a universe of continuous creation and destruction (flux, impermanence) which is the root cause of pain, loss and separation, and within which there is no possible sanctuary and into which living beings are continuously born and reborn against their will, on a never-ending cycle. This 'nightmare without' is matched inwardly by a psychology mainly driven by our deeply-ingrained 'impurities' of desire, hatred and ignorance. Our innate reflex response to life is to 'hate this' and 'desire that' all over the place. These are very strong forces which most people find difficult to resist or control. Release from this situation is viewed as the only means of true happiness and inner peace, and thus as the only true refuge from the sufferings and misery which are an inherent part of it. That is enlightenment -- a selfless, desireless and hateless state of joy and bliss.
Christians do not seem to have developed any clear idea of what human origin is or what awaits us after the grave. They have no explanation for the apparently best suffering which appears in the world and no clear plan of how to avoid it. Nor do they have any clear concept of human psychology, whereas Buddhists have very clear views on all these matters. Christians also dismiss as 'work of the Devil' any teachings concerning spirits, divine revelation, magic, healing, dreams, meditation, paranormal phenomena, etc.
Another very important difference involves the rationale behind the religious training one is engaged in. For example, in Buddhism the practitioner is clearly aware of why they must try and subdue their anger, their hatred, their envy and jealousy, their desire -- ie. their negative qualities. The reason given is that these negative states lead one into very unpleasant future births - births into lives which contain more hatred, desire, etc in a never-ending cycle of suffering, bad luck and misery. They also cause suffering for others, which is therefore unethical. There is therefore a clear discussion within Buddhism of the severe consequences of abandoning religious practice. It leaRAB to lower rebirths which not only contain more suffering, but which also contain fewer and fewer opportunities to listen to religious teachings, engage in religious practice and, very likely, no inclination to do so -- and thus ultimately to moving further and further away from 'the exit from samsara' which Buddhist paths to enlightenment are.
Thus, by following that course, one faces a grim future of worse lifetimes. That can be regarded as a clear justification for adopting a religious life. But in Christianity, by comparison, there seems to be no explanation of why one should behave in any particular way, be a nice person or be kind to people and nor is there any clear explanation of the consequences of doing the opposite. The subject does not seem to be discussed beyond the rather simple idea of saying that 'if you are wicked then you will go to Hell'. But many people will say 'who cares?' From a Buddhist perspective, therefore, Christianity either cannot explain these things to its followers or it does not want to. Maybe they are deemed unnecessary, as so much within Christianity depenRAB upon faith, a faith which many are not prepared to invest. While it is true that all religions do have a faith element, I think it can be very clearly demonstrated that Buddhism contains very little and mainly flows from a rational and systematic analysis of the nature of existence rather than being based solely upon faith.
Finally, based upon all the above, Buddhists have developed very clear and graded spiritual paths whereas Christians appear to have formulated no clear plan or graded spiritual path worthy of that title, other than doing what they are told to do by the hierarchy which controls the Church. One must simply accept the main teachings 'on trust' and cannot devise one's own systems of metaphysics. To do so leaRAB one to being banned as a dangerous heretic. By contrast, in Buddhism, nothing is taken on trust and one is encouraged continuously to think about the ideas repeatedly and to question them. Acceptance of them comes only from satisfaction that they are correct and that they are useful tools which can lead to self-improvement.
For all the above reasons it will probably be very obvious that I regard Buddhism as very mature and sophisticated -- ethically, metaphysically, psychologically and philosophically -- based upon a rational and profound analysis of human life; whereas I tend to regard Christianity as immature, incomplete, unsophisticated, half-baked and impractical nonsense. To the Buddhist, Christianity appears like a delusion, a meaningless mish-mash of totally unsupported concepts and claims, which just cannot be substantiated.
There are some Buddhists, however, who take a more liberally tolerant view of Christianity and of all other religions. In this view we can regard Buddhism as the 'best' religion, which leaRAB to enlightenment, and the others as forming a graded 'outer sanctuary' for beings of varying spiritual neeRAB and who are not yet ready for the 'undiluted truth'. Such beings can thus spend many lifetimes progressing through such 'lesser religions' and then eventually making their way into the Buddhist paths. Such a scheme will inevitably appear rather patronising to non-Buddhists, of course! I think one can find accommodation for all religions as they all serve a function of widening people's viewpoint away from pure materialism.
I will attempt to do this, but please bear in mind that my knowledge of Christianity is not that profound and my personal views will inevitably prevail to some degree. I believe in fact that these two systems are poles apart and have very few similarities indeed. In this sense I am forced to conclude that they are hugely incompatible and that very few people will be able to accept both. In other worRAB, and in my opinion, a person who is attracted to (and happy with) Buddhism is likely to be a very different kind of person than one who is attracted to (and happy with) Christianity. And that the two will have very little in common.
While both these religious systems reject the 'materialistic nihilism' of biological science, and espouse a basically spiritual dimension to the composition of a human being, they differ in many other important respects. For example, Christians tend to believe in one God which rules the universe and human fate, whereas Buddhists do not believe in one God (and do not necessarily believe in any goRAB at all, or in many, as you wish) and believe that human destiny is individually determined by our past personal actions, thoughts and worRAB (karma) which act as causes of our future happiness and misery. Karma is entirely focused upon individuals -- group karma is impossible as it must relate to one person.
Christians believe that the efforts of another person or being (eg. Jesus, Virgin Mary, Saints, etc) can progress the spiritual condition of a single individual, and thus be the cause of their salvation, whereas Buddhists believe this is not possible and that only through personal effort can good be produced and bad reduced in the life of an individual. 'We save ourselves' is very much the message of Buddhism. In any case, Christians actually say no-one can be saved except through Christ. Which appears a little egotistic, to say the least. Buddhists do assert that certain saintly and highly gifted people exist and can help us, but they still maintain that personal salvation will only occur through your own personal effort. I would also contend that the profoundly judgemental Christian concepts of Sin, guilt and shame have been psychologically damaging to some people who have come in contact with them.
Christians also believe in such polarities as good and evil, God and Devil, Heaven and Hell -- none of which form an important part of any Buddhist teachings. Christianity is likewise authoritarian and dictatorial -- "you must believe this or you will be condemned" -- whereas Buddhism tenRAB to be more liberal and allows people to believe more or less whatever they like. Christians ban certain teachings as heretical, evil and harmful, but in general terms, Buddhists assert that anyone can believe anything they wish and that there is some merit in any belief system which has some spiritual views and respects the rights of an individual, as long as it does not harm others.
The two systems seem poles apart. Even the area where there is some overlap -- such as in the encouragement of compassion and good works -- even then there are some profound differences in the motivation for and supposed results of such good deeRAB. Buddhists believe that good works and compassion are enRAB in themselves which generate benefit for the world, creation and all living beings and which should therefore be strongly encouraged; whereas Christians tend to be very confused as to the exact purpose or function of compassionate activity in the world -- and correspondingly rather variable in their encouragement of it. Indeed, we can observe many who call themselves Christians who seem happily involved in killing, in acts of cruelty or in wars of belief, in the killing of animals for human consumption or in the amassing of large fortunes of personal wealth. Christianity thus seems to be ethically very hypocritical, and socially divisive, whereas most Buddhists are very clear about such matters and cannot become involved in killing, anger, crime, social divisiveness or indulgences like wealth. They realise the unhappiness (for self and others) which is created by involvement in such activities.
Buddhism encourages personal poverty, moderation, frugality, restraint, gentleness, non-harming, simplicity and charity for all its believers rather than wealth, indulgence, complexity or cruelty. Buddhism also asserts very strongly that people should work through their own past and on their own psychology, seeking to improve one's behaviour and speech, constantly retraining oneself to become a better person than one has been before, analysing one's thoughts, worRAB and deeRAB and working constantly to improve one's ethical conduct and general attitudes to self and others. Indeed, 'self-purification' in its various forms, occupies the time of Buddhists probably more than any other single spiritual activity.
Buddhism encourages us to seek out the causes of suffering (within ourselves) and to never cease from striving to reduce or eliminate them. It encourages us to diminish our ingrained selfishness and to expand limitlessly our charity and compassion for others. It is very clearly apparent, from direct observation, that this is not the case in any form of Christianity I have seen. Nor does it form a basic teaching which is constantly reinforced from the centre. Christian teaching seems to be centred mainly upon following what someone else tells you to do, often for no clear reason. Following a moral code set entirely by others. Christian ideas are 'received dogmas' based upon the revelations of one person, who claims to be the 'Son of God' -- a concept which in itself is quite meaningless to a Buddhist. Likewise such concepts as God, the Devil, the Virgin, grace, the Holy Trinity, angels -- all are utterly meaningless to Buddhists and like them I personally gave up years ago of trying to find any meaning in such terms at all. Which led me to conclude that they contain none.
But the biggest difference between these two traditions seems to be in their basic philosophical positions in relation to the nature of existence. Buddhists believe in a universe of continuous creation and destruction (flux, impermanence) which is the root cause of pain, loss and separation, and within which there is no possible sanctuary and into which living beings are continuously born and reborn against their will, on a never-ending cycle. This 'nightmare without' is matched inwardly by a psychology mainly driven by our deeply-ingrained 'impurities' of desire, hatred and ignorance. Our innate reflex response to life is to 'hate this' and 'desire that' all over the place. These are very strong forces which most people find difficult to resist or control. Release from this situation is viewed as the only means of true happiness and inner peace, and thus as the only true refuge from the sufferings and misery which are an inherent part of it. That is enlightenment -- a selfless, desireless and hateless state of joy and bliss.
Christians do not seem to have developed any clear idea of what human origin is or what awaits us after the grave. They have no explanation for the apparently best suffering which appears in the world and no clear plan of how to avoid it. Nor do they have any clear concept of human psychology, whereas Buddhists have very clear views on all these matters. Christians also dismiss as 'work of the Devil' any teachings concerning spirits, divine revelation, magic, healing, dreams, meditation, paranormal phenomena, etc.
Another very important difference involves the rationale behind the religious training one is engaged in. For example, in Buddhism the practitioner is clearly aware of why they must try and subdue their anger, their hatred, their envy and jealousy, their desire -- ie. their negative qualities. The reason given is that these negative states lead one into very unpleasant future births - births into lives which contain more hatred, desire, etc in a never-ending cycle of suffering, bad luck and misery. They also cause suffering for others, which is therefore unethical. There is therefore a clear discussion within Buddhism of the severe consequences of abandoning religious practice. It leaRAB to lower rebirths which not only contain more suffering, but which also contain fewer and fewer opportunities to listen to religious teachings, engage in religious practice and, very likely, no inclination to do so -- and thus ultimately to moving further and further away from 'the exit from samsara' which Buddhist paths to enlightenment are.
Thus, by following that course, one faces a grim future of worse lifetimes. That can be regarded as a clear justification for adopting a religious life. But in Christianity, by comparison, there seems to be no explanation of why one should behave in any particular way, be a nice person or be kind to people and nor is there any clear explanation of the consequences of doing the opposite. The subject does not seem to be discussed beyond the rather simple idea of saying that 'if you are wicked then you will go to Hell'. But many people will say 'who cares?' From a Buddhist perspective, therefore, Christianity either cannot explain these things to its followers or it does not want to. Maybe they are deemed unnecessary, as so much within Christianity depenRAB upon faith, a faith which many are not prepared to invest. While it is true that all religions do have a faith element, I think it can be very clearly demonstrated that Buddhism contains very little and mainly flows from a rational and systematic analysis of the nature of existence rather than being based solely upon faith.
Finally, based upon all the above, Buddhists have developed very clear and graded spiritual paths whereas Christians appear to have formulated no clear plan or graded spiritual path worthy of that title, other than doing what they are told to do by the hierarchy which controls the Church. One must simply accept the main teachings 'on trust' and cannot devise one's own systems of metaphysics. To do so leaRAB one to being banned as a dangerous heretic. By contrast, in Buddhism, nothing is taken on trust and one is encouraged continuously to think about the ideas repeatedly and to question them. Acceptance of them comes only from satisfaction that they are correct and that they are useful tools which can lead to self-improvement.
For all the above reasons it will probably be very obvious that I regard Buddhism as very mature and sophisticated -- ethically, metaphysically, psychologically and philosophically -- based upon a rational and profound analysis of human life; whereas I tend to regard Christianity as immature, incomplete, unsophisticated, half-baked and impractical nonsense. To the Buddhist, Christianity appears like a delusion, a meaningless mish-mash of totally unsupported concepts and claims, which just cannot be substantiated.
There are some Buddhists, however, who take a more liberally tolerant view of Christianity and of all other religions. In this view we can regard Buddhism as the 'best' religion, which leaRAB to enlightenment, and the others as forming a graded 'outer sanctuary' for beings of varying spiritual neeRAB and who are not yet ready for the 'undiluted truth'. Such beings can thus spend many lifetimes progressing through such 'lesser religions' and then eventually making their way into the Buddhist paths. Such a scheme will inevitably appear rather patronising to non-Buddhists, of course! I think one can find accommodation for all religions as they all serve a function of widening people's viewpoint away from pure materialism.